RAJ KUMAR NIGAM Vs. KHALIFA KHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19th January 1993 of a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby two applications of the plaintiffs in the suit (respondents herein) under Order XXXIX Rules I and 2 were' disposed of. Befly stated the facts are that the respondents herein filed a suit for recovery of damages on account of alleged illegal demolition of certain portions of the property in suit claimed to be in their tenancies by the defendants (appellants herein). Besides damages the plaintiffs also claimed -perpetual injunction restraining the defendants (appellants), their agents etc. from obstructing any repair and reconstruction of the damaged walls and re-laying of roofs and tinsheds of the respective tenanted portions of the plaintiffs as they existed on or before 31st May 1992 and from causing further damage and demolition in the suit property. Alongwith the suit the plaintiffs filed an application (I.A. 10292/92) under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151,C.P.C. praying for interim relief restraining defendants (appellants) from demolishing or damaging the suit properly or any part thereof and from dispossessing the plaintiffs from their respective tenancy portions. Another application (I.A. 13430/92) under Order XXXIX Rules 1,2 & 4 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code was filed subsequently by the plaintiffs for modification of an interim order dated 16th October 1992 whereby status quo regarding property in suit was ordered to be maintained. They also prayed for permission to carry out repairs and to reconstruct the damaged portions to bring the premises to its condition prior to its demolition. There was a further prayer that the defendants be restrained from interfering or obstructing the plaintiffs in repairing and reconstruction and re-laying of the roofs and tinsheds of the properly in suit.

(2.) It is admitted position that the defendants (appellants herein) arc owners of the property in suit bearing No.3564,Kucha Daya Ram, Chawri Bazar, Delhi by virtue of duty registered sale deeds executed in their favour by the previous owners of the property. It is also an admitted fact that on the date of institution of the present suit, no construction in the shape of any structure existed in the premises. Whatever structures existed on the premises stood demolished on the night of 30th/31st May 1992.

(3.) By the impugned order the learned Single Judge while rejecting both the applications of the plaintiffs for interim relief, directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the properly in suit. The learned Single Judge has observed that there is no ground to permit the plaintiffs to reconstruct any structure nor there is anything to be repaired since admittedly there was no structure whatsoever in existence at the premises. The plaintiffs have accepted the judgment of the learned Single Judge and have not appealed against the said judgment even though both their applications for interim relief stand disposed of without any relief whatsoever being granted to them. It is the defendants alone who have challenged the said order of the learned Single Judge by way of the present appeal. The defendants are aggrieved of the direction to maintain status quo qua the property in suit. The defendants claim that they are the owners of the property and have a right to construct a building thereon according to the building plans which they allege to have got sanctioned in the meanwhile from the concerned authorities. According to the appellants/defendants the suit may lake its own time and the Final outcome of the litigation may not become known for long. The defendants pray that they should not be deprived of the right to make construction on their valuable property. The delay in construction firstly deprives them of the opportunity to reap fruits of their property and secondly mounting cost of construction will result in great Financial loss and hardship to them.