RAJENDER Vs. LALIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is before this Court against order of the Appellate Court dated 01.06.2020 whereby the plaintiff's appeal against order dated 15.05.2020 passed on an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC has been allowed. The defendant has been injuncted partially as parties have been directed to maintain status quo regarding construction over the suit property till decision of the suit.

(2.) Plaintiff-Respondent No.1 has filed a suit dated 03.05.2020 for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction on the plea that the suit land measuring 27K-01M situate in Village Daultabad, Sub-Tehsil Kadipur, District Gurugram is his ancestral property and that he along with his sisters and mother (proforma defendants) have been in cultivating possession thereof. Petitioner-defendant No.1 filed an application for partition before the revenue authorities in which dasti summons dated 02.07.2018 were got issued. The signatures of the plaintiff and proforma defendants were forged and report of service was obtained in collusion with Rajbir, Namberdar of Village Daultabad. Consequently, they were proceeded against ex parte and the land was illegally partitioned vide order dated 18.06.2019 passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Kadipur. The plaintiff and proforma defendants acquired knowledge of this order in November, 2019 when the petitioner attempted to raise construction. Immediately, appeal dated 29.11.2019 was filed against the order dated 18.06.2019. In February, 2020, a police complaint as well as a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. were also filed. The petitioner-defendant No.1 stopped his activity for sometime but in May, 2020 he again attempted to raise construction leading to the filing of the suit. Along with this suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC was also filed with a prayer for ad interim temporary injunction.

(3.) In the written statement of the petitioner-defendant No.1 it has been pleaded that the suit deserves dismissal on account of concealment of relevant facts such as possession being handed over on 06.07.2019 pursuant to warrants of possession having been issued. Maintainability of the suit has also been questioned in view of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On merits, the allegations regarding forgery and of obtaining the service report in collusion with Rajbir, Namberdar of Village Daultabad have been denied. Further, it has been stated that after taking over of possession, the land in dispute has been enclosed with a boundary wall and two rooms have also been constructed.