VED PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. LACHMI CHAND SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this revision petition is the defendant in the suit and the respondent is the plaintiff therein. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner in possession of the suit property. The defendant filed written statement claiming title and possession over the suit property. However, the trial court passed a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. The defendant filed an appeal in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Delhi on 18-11-1985 against the judgment and decree dated 30-9-1985 passed by Shri Z.S. Solanki, Civil Judge, Delhi. The plaintiff filed reply to the appeal on 26-2-1986. The appeal was adjourned from time to time for arguments. In the meanwhile the appellant/defendant moved an application dated 21-1-1989 under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the code of Civil procedure (for short called 'the code') praying that the respondent/plaintiff, his associates, attorneys, employees, servants, friends and relative's be restrained from parting with possession of the suit property and from raising any illegal and unauthorised construction without duly sanctioned plan from M.C.D. till the decision of the appeal on merits. On the said application the appellate court on 23.1.1989 passed the following order:-

(2.) In the application dated 2.12.1997 filed under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code the plaintiff contended that the ex parte injunction order dated 23-1-1989 was liable to be set aside and vacated for non-compliance of the provisions of Order 39, Rule 3 of the Code. In support of the said contention the plaintiff made the following averments in paragraph (7) of the said application:-

(3.) In the reply filed by the defendant it was stated that requisite notice was sent to the respondent along with the documents after the passing of the order dated 23.1.1989. The avernments in paragraph 7 of the application were denied by the defendant. According to the defendant it was false that the appellant-defendant did not comply with the provisions of Order 39, Rule 3 of the Code as alleged.