RAVINDER NATH CHOPRA Vs. ANIL GUPTA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 impugns the consent judgment and decree dated 28th May, 2012 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ) (Central) -04, Delhi in CS No.29/12 filed by the respondents no.1 and 2 therein viz. Anil Gupta and Manoj Gupta against the respondent no.3 therein viz. Kamal Kumar Lamba for the reliefs of recovery of vacant, peaceful, physical possession of two rooms, tin -shed, kitchen, toilet and bathroom of properties No.3871 to 3874, Gali No.25, Reghar Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed to the plaint and for recovery of mesne profits / damages for use and occupation and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent no.3 Kamal Kumar Lamba from handing over possession of the said portion of the property to anyone else.

(2.) The appellant Ravinder Nath Chopra was not a party to the suit from which the appeal arises; however claiming to be adversely affected by the judgment and decree aforesaid, has preferred the appeal and which came up before this Court first on 27th July, 2012 when notice thereof was issued and on the application of the appellant Ravinder Nath Chopra for interim relief, the following order was passed: "Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 28th September, 2012. Till the next date of hearing, respondents are directed to maintain status quo with respect to the property which is the subject matter of the compromise decree impugned in the appeal and not to create any third party interest in respect of the same."

(3.) Though the respondents no.1&2 Anil Gupta and Manoj Gupta in response to the notice issued appeared but none appeared for the respondent no.3 Kamal Kumar Lamba despite service.