RAJENDRA NATH DATT Vs. KEDAR NATH CHHIBBER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS common order shall dispose of the aforesaid two Civil Revisions since they emerge out the same suit involving essentially the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner, who is now practicing Advocate and his wife respondent no.5 Mrs. Roma Dutt.

(2.) IN brief, facts are that petitioner -Rajendra Nath Datt and respondent no.5 Roma Datt were married on 16.11.1986. A daughter and son was born out of the wedlock. They are stated to have resided at Delhi till 2002, when the petitioner along with his family shifted to Vadodra to a house bearing no.H -149, Akansha Duplex, Subhanpura, Vadodra. It is the conceded position that the said house is owned by the father of the wife Sh. Kedar Nath Chhibber -defendant no.1(respondent no.1). It is stated that the son -in -law Rajendra Nath Datt along with his family was permitted to reside there in order to peacefully settle them there. Subsequently, in the year 2005, inter alia due to a matrimonial dispute the wife along with the children is stated to have come back to her parental home at Karnal. It is alleged that the possession of the said house was forcibly taken by his in -laws on 18.11.2005 resulting into petitioner filing a suit on 14.12.2005 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for recovery of possession before the Courts at Vadodra. Subsequently, the said suit was transferred to the Courts at Karnal by an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the transfer application filed by the in -laws of the petitioner/plaintiff.

(3.) CIVIL Revision No.4481 of 2012 arises out of an order dated 22.02.2012 passed by the trial Court/Additional Civil Judge(Sr. Divn.), Karnal whereby the application of the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for passing of a judgment on admission was dismissed, whereas Civil Revision No.4075 of 2013 arises out of the order dated 22.02.2012 passed by the trial Court dismissing the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and order dated 6.10.2012 passed by the Lower Appellate Court whereby the miscellaneous CA filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the order declining temporary injunction was dismissed as time barred due to the delay of 89 days.