LAWS(MPH)-2017-1-57

MANNU RAJE TRUST Vs. MOHAMMAD AZAD

Decided On January 31, 2017
Mannu Raje Trust Appellant
V/S
Mohammad Azad Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred this revision application being aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2011 pronounced by VIth Additional Civil Judge Class-II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.41A/2010, whereby the application of the applicant preferred under Order 7, Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code was rejected.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of the instant case are that the respondent No.1 has represented to be residing in the accommodation allotted to him by the present applicant while the respondent was discharging his duties as an employee in the Museum run by the applicant herein. The respondent claims to be residing in the said premises for last 30 years without there being any interference or objection by the applicant. Although the respondent was threatened by the applicant that he should vacate the premises within two days failing which he would be forcefully evicted from the suit premises. Feeling aggrieved by such illegal act of the present applicant, the respondent herein filed a suit for permanent injunction against the applicant for the relief that the applicant shall not evict the respondent herein without following the procedure established by law, meaning thereby that the applicant cannot forcefully evict the respondent without decree of the Court.

(3.) Before adverting to the contentions advanced by the parties, it is necessary to sequentially narrate with the respect to the application preferred by the present applicant under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. As per the record, the first application under Order 7, Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code was moved on 14.07.2010 which was rejected by the court below by the order dated 05.08.2010. Thereafter, another application, under the same provision of law was filed on 30.02011 which was also rejected by the court blow on 09.05.2011. Another application under Order 7, Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code has been moved on 25.07.2011 which has been rejected by the impugned order, has prompted the applicant to file the instant revision application before this Court.