PRADEEP AGGARWAL Vs. SANJEEV MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on this appeal filed by the appellants praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 29th August, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) By the aforesaid order, prayer of the appellants to dismiss the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 was rejected. The learned Single Judge did not accept the contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants, who are defendant Nos. 2 to 6 that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff- respondent had earlier filed a writ petition and held that the issue pertaining to alleged unauthorised construction can be adjudicated inter-se the parties and, therefore, the suit cannot be dismissed as not maintainable. He referred to the orders passed dismissing the writ petition and in appeal. The learned Single Judge further observed that trial should be expedited and issued a direction to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to file the entire record containing application received for grant of sanction to effect construction/re- construction on property bearing No. 1, Maharaja Lal Lane, Civil Lines, New Delhi. The aforesaid direction was also passed by the learned Single Judge as the same would include the sanction granted as also the notings on the file. Having held thus, the learned Single Judge framed the following issues:-

(3.) Having gone through the records, we are of the considered opinion that whether the suit is maintainable or not, cannot be decided at this stage without looking into the entire evidence and records. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that an additional issue should be framed in the suit for determining as to whether the suit is maintainable. Apart from the aforesaid issues framed by the learned Single Judge, the following issue is framed:- ?i) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD-3 to 6.?