LAWS(DLH)-2018-2-177

MOHAN LAL Vs. HARI SINGH

Decided On February 05, 2018
MOHAN LAL Appellant
V/S
HARI SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order under challenge by the petition at hand was passed by the senior civil judge in first appeal (MCA No.08/2014), decided on 12.05.2015, affirming the decision of the trial court (civil judge), whereby the application of the petitioner-plaintiff of the civil suit (Suit No.50/2014) seeking ad interim injunction against the respondents was dismissed by order dated 16.07.2014. The civil suit in which the said interim relief was claimed invoking provisions contained in Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was instituted in 2014 claiming cause of action to have arisen in February/March, 2014 when the respondents allegedly made attempts to forcibly dispossess the petitioner from the suit premises described as property bearing No. C-540/1, J.J. Colony, Inderpuri, New Delhi. The respondents have been impleaded as first and second defendants in the said civil suit. The civil judge declined to grant any relief by order dated 16.07.2014, inter alia, observing that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of facts. This view was affirmed by the first appellate court.

(2.) In (para 7 of) the plaint of the suit in question the petitioner had, inter alia, pleaded that on the cause of action that had earlier arisen he had previously filed a similar suit against erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi (before its trifurcation giving birth, inter alia, to the second respondent) which suit, he pleaded, had been "disposed of" by the additional senior civil judge, stating that it was a simple suit for permanent injunction. The result of the said suit was not clarified. It turned out, upon detailed scrutiny, that the said civil suit had been dismissed by the additional senior civil Judge on the basis of finding returned that the documents on the basis of which the petitioner claims right, title and interest in the suit property are forged and fabricated.

(3.) On being asked, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that though appeal had been filed against the dismissal of the first suit, the said appeal had come to be dismissed in default but the application for its restoration is still pending.