RADHA AGARWAL Vs. CHITRA GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals came up for preliminary hearing on 19.5.2008 when notice was directed to be issued to the respondents returnable on 21.7.2008. It was also observed that the notice would indicate that the appeals may be disposed of at the admission stage. The Court also stayed further proceedings in the suit. On 21.7.2008, learned counsel for the appellant requested for one day's accommodation as Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel who had to argue the matter on behalf of the appellants, was busy in the Supreme Court. The matter was accordingly taken up on 22.7.2008 when Mr. Venkataramani appeared for the appellants and made his submissions. Mr. Arun Mohan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1., also advanced his arguments. However, as need to peruse the suit record was felt, the matter was adjourned for today. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellants today even when the matter was passed over once and is called out the second time. In any case, as we had heard the counsel for the parties yesterday, i.e. on 22.7.2008, and the suit record is also available, we proceed with the order in these appeals.

(2.) The respondent No.1 is the contesting party, who is the plaintiff in Suit No. 2565/1993. This suit filed by the plaintiff is for recovery of possession of residential house No. R-96, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi as well as for mesne profits. In this suit, the plaintiff had arrayed two persons as defendants, namely Shri Surinder Kumar Bansal as defendant No.1 (since deceased) {hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant No.1.'} as well as Smt. Seema Bansal as defendant No.2, who is the wife of defendant No.1 {for the sake of convenience, she is referred as 'defendant No.2' hereafter}. The suit proceeded on the averments that both these defendants are in illegal occupation of the suit premises. The manner in which they came to be in possession etc., as per the averments made in the plaint, need not be stated as that is not required. Suffice it to mention that the premises were initially let out in the year 1971 by Col. Harjeet Singh, the original owner of the suit premises, to 'Mr. Pires's Private School' through its Proprietor Mr. Alan St. John Pires. As per the averments in the plaint, the defendant No.2 was Head Mistress/Principal of the said school. The plaintiff is the successor-in-interest who has purchased the suit property from Col. Harjeet Singh.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendants, it is inter alia alleged that the defendant No.2 was in possession of the suit premises and defendant No.1 had nothing to do with the suit premises and was, therefore, unnecessarily impleaded as a party. On this basis, he even filed an application, i.e. IA No. 7942/1998 praying that his name be deleted from the array of parties. During the pendency of these proceedings, the defendant No.1 also died on 13.4.2003 and the application for bringing the LRs of defendant No.1 was moved by the plaintiff. Notice in those applications was issued to the LRs of the defendant No.1 and they were brought on record. It is this IA No. 7942/1998 preferred by the defendant No.1 which is allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 7.5.2008 after recording the statement of counsel for the plaintiff that he does not oppose the said application. The precise order passed in this behalf reads as under :-