RAVINDER Vs. VIRENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant / plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 22.10.1996 as well as for permanent injunction praying that the defendants / respondents be restrained from dispossessing him from the suit land. This court vide its order dated 18.09.1997 directed the defendants / respondents not to create any third party interest and directed both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit land. Previously the case was pending before this court but due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, the case was transferred before the District Judge. The Additional District Judge vide its order dated 31.01.2007 dismissed the application moved by the appellant / plaintiff and allowed the application of the respondents under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. Aggrieved by that order first appeal was preferred. I dismissed the appeal vide my order dated 15.03.2007.

(2.) IN the meantime, the respondents moved an application before the District Judge dated 05.07.2007, wherein the following averments were made. After vacation of the interim order the appellant brought labour at the land in dispute on 03.05.2007 in order to cultivate the land. The appellant called the police, made a complaint that the respondents were taking possession of his land and were attempting to manhandle him. Appellant, who was accompanied by various jhuggi dwellers claimed that he would not allow the defendants/respondents to cultivate their land. Both the parties were taken to the police station. It is alleged that the appellant had good influence over the police, he being a property dealer. The police also threatened the respondents. The respondents prayed that the appellant be restrained from interfering in respondents' peaceful possession of the land in dispute till the disposal of the suit. It was further prayed that SHO be directed not to create any hindrance in cultivation of the suit land.

(3.) THE learned ADJ held that vide his order dated 31.01.2007 he had dealt with the aspect of possession. According to record, 3 acres of land is lying vacant and in case of vacant land it is very easy to make oral plea about the possession but agreement dated 22.10.1996 does not favour the appellant. Secondly, the appellant had made contradictory statements. Trial court did not accept the request of the appellant to appoint Local Commissioner. Trial court, however, accepted the application moved by the respondents and restrained the appellant from interfering in use and cultivation of the land measuring 3 acres comprised in Khasra no. 5/14, 15, 16, min 17 situated in village Jindpur Delhi. The trial court also observed that there was apprehension of altercation between the parties, therefore, in order to avoid such unforeseen eventualities, copy of the order was sent to SHO, Police Station Narela for getting compliance of his order in terms of Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. T.M. Nagarajan and Ors., 1988 (15) DRJ 212.