DWARKI DEVI Vs. ANITA KAPILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for the grant of ad interim injunction so as to restrain the defendant-respondent from dispossessing them from House No. 501, Old Bishan Nagar, Patiala till the decision of the main suit for declaration and permanent injunction, was disposed of by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala on 18.2.2008 by directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession of the disputed house during the pendency of the suit. Aggrieved of the same, the defendant-respondent filed an appeal, which was allowed by Additional District Judge, Patiala on 16.10.2008 by setting aside the order passed by the trial Court and dismissing the application for ad interim injunction. The plaintiffs are before this Court by way of revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for setting aside the order passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala on 16.10.2008 and for restoring/upholding the order passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala on 18.2.2008.

(2.) According to the plaintiffs-petitioners, they were in possession of house in dispute, i.e. House No. 501, which was earlier in possession of their predecessor-in-interest Faqir Singh. The defendant- respondent obtained orders of ejectment qua House No. 505 but under the garb of the said orders he had been trying to dispossess them from House No.501, which was under their exclusive ownership. According to the defendant-respondent, the house in dispute bears No.505. It was taken on monthly rent of Rs.450/- by Faqir Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. An ejectment petition was filed by the defendant-respondent against Faqir Singh, which was allowed on 24.4.2003. The said order was upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, in order to avoid delivery of possession of the house in question and to debar her from executing the order of ejectment, the plaintiffs came up with false and frivolous plea that they were in possession of House No.501 and not 505. Undisputedly, Faqir Singh, the predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiffs, was a tenant under the defendant. The ejectment petition was allowed on 24.3.2003 by Rent Controller, Patiala. The appeal filed by Faqir Singh against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 9.6.2004 and so also the revision by the High Court on 20.3.2006. The matter was then taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of a petition for special leave but the same was dismissed on 18.5.2007. Execution application filed by the defendant is pending before the Rent Controller, Patiala. The objections submitted by the plaintiffs stand dismissed. Left with no other option, the plaintiffs seem to have filed the present suit so as to avoid delivery of possession of the disputed house to the defendant. Under these circumstances, lower appellate Court rightly held that there was no dispute regarding title and identity of the property in dispute.

(3.) It may not be out of place to mention here that the defendant-respondent filed Contempt Petition (C) No.282 of 2008 in S.L.P. (C) No.9909 of 2006, which came up for hearing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 19.1.2009 when notice was issued to the plaintiffs-petitioners to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them for violating the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court earlier on 18.5.2007. Even notice was issued to Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala to show cause as to why similar proceedings be not initiated against him for passing the order dated 18.2.2008 inspite of order dated 18.5.2007 passed in S.L.P. (C) No.9909 of 2006.