KUNDAN LAL AHUJA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications, moved by the plaintiff/ applicant (hereafter referred to as the plaintiffclaiming mandatory and prohibitory temporary injunction, are being disposed of by this single order.

(2.) In OMP No. 184 of 1999, the plaintiff has prayed for a direction to the respondents -defendants (hereafter referred to as the defendants) to remove the seals/locks put by them on the property comprising khasra Nos. 490/62 (old and 332/1, 333 to 338, 340 and 342 measuring 252. 79 square yards at Aroma Hotel, situate in Station Ward, Chhota Shimla, (hereafter referred to as the suit property) on the grounds that the suit property which was evacuee property was purchased by one Dina Nath Malhotra vide sale certificate dated 28.6.1961 and the plaintiff is a purchaser of the property from said Dina Nath. However, the defendants have sealed a certain portion of the suit property. The plaintiff has instituted a suit for damages, declaration of his title, mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 3 to remove the seals/locks aforesaid and consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction directing the defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and that the plaintiff had a good prima facie case and in case the interim injunction as prayed for is not allowed, he will suffer huge and irreparable loss and that the balance of convenience is in favour of the grant of interim relief as prayed for. In OMP No. 346, on the aforesaid grounds, the plaintiff has prayed for restraining the defendants 2 and 3 from selling or auctioning the suit property during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) Defendants have contested both these applications mainly on the ground that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff who is not the owner or in possession of the suit property.