K. GUPTA Vs. NAJMA W/O. RAMZANALI RASEKHINEJAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is full of several mysteries. The mysterious journey begins from a confusion as to who exactly is the Appellant and continues to pose several conundrums as to who contested proceedings before the City Civil Court, who possesses the room in question, how did he come in its possession, who exactly is claiming protection from eviction of that room, etc. There are two persons: 'K. Gupta' and 'Santosh Gupta', who claim to be the Appellant. Appeal is filed in the name of 'K. Gupta', but 'Santosh Gupta' claims that he has filed it. By filing the appeal, 'K. Gupta' wants to protect his possession over the room in question, while 'Santosh Gupta' says 'K. Gupta' has no concern with the room, which is in his possession. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the mystery intensified to such an extent that it put the learned counsel arguing this appeal into puzzle as to whom she actually represents. This court is required to spend time in solving these mysteries rather than concentrating on determining the issue involved in the appeal.

(2.) This appeal is filed in the name of 'K. Gupta' challenging order dtd. 27/1/2016 passed by the City Civil Court granting relief in favour of Defendant No.1 in Notice of Motion No.4454 of 2015. By the impugned order, City Civil Court has directed that 'K Gupta' as well as 'Santosh Gupta' and their family members, agents and servants to be removed from the room in question by delivering possession thereof to the Court Receiver. The Court Receiver has been directed to take possession of the room and submit a report to that effect before City Civil Court.

(3.) The Suit as originally filed has no connection with either of Guptas: 'K' or 'Santosh'. They are not even parties to the Suit. Their entry in the proceedings is necessitated on account of occupation of one of the rooms of the suit structure by either of them. The Suit is in respect of an eatery by name 'New Persian Restaurant and Stores' which was being operated in partnership by Ramzan Ali Rasekhinejad and Abbas Ali s/o. Ali Akbar Sabarali Rasekhinejad. After death of Ramzan Ali Rasekhinejad, his widow Najma and her three sons Ytusufali, Hussainali and Kasamali filed Suit No. 1789 of 1988 before this Court against Abbas Ali s/o. Ali Akbar Safarali Rasekhinejad seeking various declaratory and injunctive reliefs in respect of partnership business. In that suit, this Court passed order dtd. 22/9/1988 and appointed Court Receiver in respect of the said partnership business. Accordingly, the Court Receiver took possession of the partnership business, including the premises, where the restaurant was being operated. This Court further passed order dtd. 2/12/1988 directing Court Receiver to give the partnership business to interested parties for running the same as Receiver's agent. On 2/12/1988, this Court noticed that there was one room which was in Defendant's possession. This Court therefore directed that the Defendant would continue to keep the room in his possession during pendency of the Suit but restrained him from alienating, mortgaging or parting or creating third party interests in the same.