VINOD PARSHURAM MAHAJAN Vs. ABDUL REHMAN KASHMIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revisions Application seeks to challenge the Order dated 16th October 1989, passed by the Court of Small Causes, at Bombay, in Injunction Notice No. 3202 of 1989 in R.A.D. Suit No. 2222 of 1989. Under the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge has answered the preliminary issue in the affirmative. The preliminary issue framed was as under :-

(2.) A few facts may be stated as under :-

(3.) THE plaintiff has filed the present suit on the 14the June 1989 on the basis of the alleged tenancy agreement executed by the first defendant Virendra Gaur in his favour. It appears that Virendra Gaur claims to have a Power of Attorney in his favour executed by the Company on 15th January 1981. He also claims to have development agreement in his favour executed by the Company on the same day Defendant No. 2 Yasin Khan also claims to have a sub-development agreement from the defendant No. 1 Virendra Gaur executed on the 30th August 1988. In fact on the 6th September, 1989, Yasin Khan filed suit No. 7012 of 1988, against one Ashok Padekar, security agent of the petitioners and obtained in junction against the said Padekar. Immediately on the next day viz. 7th September, 1988, there were consent terms filed between the said Padekar and Yasin Khan, who was the plaintiff in Suit No. 7012 of 1988. It appears that it was on the basis consent decree obtained by said Yasin Khan on 7th September, 1988, that he tried to interfere with in possession of the petitioners in the month of September, 1988, as referred to above. As already stated, the interim order passed in favour of the petitioners in the said City Civil Court suit has been confirmed by the Supreme Court.