SATISH CHAND Vs. RAKESH KUMAR & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition at hand assails the judgment dated 03.05.2010 of the court of Additional District Judge in appeal (RCA No.86/2009/07) that was instituted by the first respondent on 02.07.2007 whereby the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2004 passed by Civil Judge in civil suit (198/1985) of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner herein was challenged. The civil suit (No.198/1985) had been instituted by Smt. Shanti Devi, wife of Late Shri Ram Nath Gupta seeking the relief of permanent injunction. It is stated that, on his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the first respondent Rakesh Kumar was impleaded as fourth defendant. The property bearing Nos.807 & 808, Katra Hiddu, Farash Khana, Delhi was the subject-matter of the said suit.

(2.) In the course of the proceedings in the afore-said suit whereby relief of permanent injunction had been sought against Delhi Telephones, the petitioner herein is stated to have then claimed that he was a tenant in the portion of the property in which the said first respondent (fourth defendant in the suit) was claiming certain interest. Against such background, the plaintiff of the case moved an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) on 30.04.1987, inter alia, alleging that the first respondent (fourth defendant in the suit) had used certain false and fabricated documents in the nature of ration card, for claiming ownership of property bearing No.807 and thereby obtaining installation of a telephone connection.

(3.) The suit was decided by judgment dated 31.08.2004 of the Civil Judge also disposing of the said application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. While the suit was decreed to the effect that the defendants (which included General Manager Delhi Telephones) were restrained from allotting or installing a telephone connection in the suit property in favour of the said first respondent (fourth defendant in the suit), the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was also allowed on the basis of finding that the documents in question were forged.