BUNDU Vs. SHAH ALAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner/Plaintiff had filed a suit before the learned Trial Court seeking specific performance of an Agreement to Sell of immovable property executed by Respondent/Defendant No.1 in favour of the Petitioner.

(2.) It was the case of the Petitioner in the plaint that the Respondent No.1 had, in pursuance to the Agreement to Sell, put the Petitioner into possession of the property. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed wherein the learned Trial Court passed an order dated 31st March, 1989 directing the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of property bearing Stall No.5, situated at Bengali Market, New Seema Puri, Shahdara, Delhi. The Petitioner claimed that he was dispossessed from the property and on an application of the Petitioner under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC the Respondent No.1 was held guilty and warrants of his arrest were issued. An order directing the Petitioner to be put back into possession of the property was also passed vide order dated 19th February, 2009 and warrants of possession of the suit property were issued on 2nd May, 2009. The Respondent No.2 filed objections against the order dated 2nd May, 2009 issuing warrants of possession of the suit property on 13th May, 2009 stating that he had purchased the suit property on 18th April, 1989 and was in possession of the suit property since then. He also disclosed that in the suit, he filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC on 6th April, 2004 but the same was dismissed by the Court on 4th October, 2004. The Respondent No.2 being a bona fide purchaser, he could not be dispossessed from the suit property. The said objections of the Respondent No.2 were allowed vide the impugned order without making any observation regarding the merit of the claim or contention of the plaintiff that principle of lis pendens would apply and hence the present petition. Vide the impugned order the learned Trial Court withdrew the warrants of possession to decide the question of lispendens at an appropriate stage and the Respondent No.1 was granted time to appear before the Court.

(3.) During the pendency of the present proceedings, it was informed that Shah Alam Respondent no.1 has since passed away and the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he did not want to implead the L.Rs. of Shah Alam which is recorded vide Order dated 23rd January, 2013.