SANJAY SINGH Vs. SUNITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 23.01.2018 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for possession, damages and permanent injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff with respect to the suit property bearing No. 15/100-A, (Block no.15 Quarter no.100A), nd Floor, Geeta Colony, Delhi-110031.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff pleaded that he purchased the suit property from the previous owner Smt. Rajrani @ Brij Mohini in terms of a registered Agreement to Sell and registered Power of Attorney dated 15.04.2015. The appellant/plaintiff also got executed in his favour the other usual documents being the Receipt, Possession Letter, Affidavit etc. It was pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff that the original owner of the suit property Smt. Rajrani @ Brij Mohini had got the property constructed from a builder namely, Sh. Jagmohan @ Jagga, who constructed upto the third floor of the property and the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 namely, Smt. Sunita @ Shobha, was inducted in the suit property at the second floor by the contractor on the ground that the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 needed the suit premises to reside temporarily as her house was under construction and would be completed very shortly. Respondent no.1/Defendant no.1, however, failed to vacate the suit property despite requests of the appellant/plaintiff, and therefore, the subject suit was filed after serving Legal Notice dated 24.08.2015. The appellant/plaintiff also claimed damages/mesne profits of Rs. 10,000/- per month.

(3.) At this stage, it is noted that originally there was only one defendant in the suit namely Smt. Sunita @ Shobha, however, when the right of the defendant Smt. Sunita @ Shobha was closed as written statement was not filed in spite of repeated opportunities, on that very day an application was filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC by a person who again called herself Sunita but she was the wife of Sh. Rajinder Kumar to get herself impleaded. This impleadment application was allowed and Smt. Sunita, wife of Sh. Rajinder Kumar, was impleaded as defendant no.2. However, defendant no. 2/Smt. Sunita, wife of Sh. Rajinder Kumar, although filed a written statement, ultimately her written statement was struck off vide Order dated 08.12.2017 for nonpayment of costs. This order striking off the defence of defendant no. 2 in the suit has become final.