VISHNU BHAGWAN MITTAL Vs. RENU MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code for the grant of an injunction as well as the application of the defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code for vacating the ex parte order of injunction and also the application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code filed by the defendant for permission to carry on the construction.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed this suit on the allegations that defendant No.1 was allotted the plot in question by the DLF; that defendant No.l sold the said plot to one Smt.Vidya, defendant No.6 by a registered sale deed and by a registered general power of attorney, she appointed defendant No.5 as her general attorney. It is alleged that the plaintiff along with his wife purchased plots of 100 sq.yds. each from defendant No.5, general attorney of defendant No.6 and the remaining 300 sq.yds. plot was purchased by defendant No.3, defendant No.2 and defendant No.4 in equal shares; 530 that the sale deeds were duly registered in the name of the plaintiff. The further allegations in the plaint are that in 1991-92 aforesaid purchasers jointly applied to the Income-Tax department for permission undersection 269 UC of the Income-Tax Act for sale of the property in favour of Nath Meichantile Private Limited at a price of Rs. 75,00,000.00 ; that the Income-Tax department, however, by order dated 17th January, 1991 acquired the property under Chapter XX C of the Act; that defendant No.l filed a writ petition being CWP.No-568/91 in this Court .against Income-Tax Department as well as against the plaintiff and his wife and defendant No.2 to 6 contending that-the plot was never sold by her to defendant No.6 from whom the plaintiff and other defendants have alleged to have purchased the same. The writ petition was admitted for hearing and the parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession. During the course of hearing of the petition, it was observed that there was a dispute with regard to title of the property which could be decided only by a Civil Court and defendant No.l was given liberty to file a suit for adjudicating the dispute regarding the title. Defendant No.l accordingly, on August 28, 1994 filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff, in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, which suit is still pending and is being contested by the plaintiff and his wife. Other defendants, however, did not appear in the said suit and are not contesting the same. It is further alleged that though the suit in the Court of Civil Judge was adjourned to 11th July, 1995, cn.3rd July, 1995, certain persons alleging themselves to be the representatives of defendant No.6 approached the plaintiff and asked him to settle the matter with respect to his share in the plot and he was informed that defendant No.l had sold the property to defendant No.7 under a collaboration agreement; that when the plaintiff went to see the plot in question, he was shocked to see that some labourers, were involved in digging the land on the plot. The plaintiff, therefore, claiming himself to be the owner of 200 sq. yds. of land filed this suit for an injunction for restraining the defendants from raising any construction or creating any third party rights or interest in the plot in question. It is also alleged in the plaint that raising of the construction by defendant No.7 and transfer of plot in his favour by defendant No.l was in Clear violation of the order of status quo passed by this Court in CWP. No-563/91 and the defendants could not be allowed to continue to construct or create third party rights in the property.

(3.) . By an exparte order passed on August 2,1995, the parties were directed to maintain status .quo with regard to the plot in question and the defendants were restrained from creating third party interest therein.