CHARANJIT SINGH Vs. CHANDRASHEKHER CHOPRA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant Charanjit Singh to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 22.09.2016 of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge whereby review petition filed by the respondent No.1 was allowed and restraint order was passed regarding the property bearing No.C-95, Farmers Apartment, Sector -13, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter 'Rohini property') during the pendency of the suit. The appeal is contested by respondent No.1.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Undisputedly, the respondent No.1 / plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 50 lacs against the appellant Charanjit Singh, Gurvinder Singh and Jatinder Singh. Gurvinder Singh is ex- parte and the suit is being contested by the appellant Charanjit Singh and Jatinder Singh. By an order dated 31.07.2013 in an ex-parte order, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo as regards both the title and possession of Rohini property. Subsequently, the contesting defendants moved an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the interim order. By a comprehensive order dated 11.11.2013 in IA 11722/2013 (filed by plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC) and IA 13656/2013 (filed by defendants No.2 & 3 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC), the contesting defendants No.2 & 3 in the suit were directed not to alienate, part with or create any third party interest in respect of their 50% share in the property No.3622-25 and 3990-95, Ward No.XII situated at Roshanara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi (hereinafter 'Roshanara Property'). It was further directed that the contesting defendants No.2 & 3 therein would deposit, within four weeks from that day, with the Registrar General of this Court a certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 22.11.2001 in respect of the said property as well as a certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2013 passed in CS(OS) 2245/2010. Subject to the order, the status-quo order dated 31.07.2013 was vacated and both the applications stood disposed of.

(3.) Subsequently, by an order dated 08.08.2016 the learned Trial Court, to whom the case was assigned due to change of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, restrained the defendants therein not to sell or create any third party interest with regard to the Rohini property. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant Charanjit Singh preferred CM(M) 896/2016 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 09.09.2016 by this Court. It was observed that the impugned order dated 08.08.2016 could not have been passed by the Trial Court without any application filed by the plaintiff therein and without a conclusion that prima facie the property in question at Roshanara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi was not sufficient security to secure respondent No.1 therein and that the said fact came to the knowledge of the respondent No.1 therein after 11.11.2013. However, liberty was granted to the plaintiff / respondent No.1 therein to move appropriate application before the Trial Court giving full facts within a week.