Pradeep Sharma vs Rajiv Garg

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Date of Judgment:28.03.2012

+     C.R.P. 157/2007 & CM Nos.12281/2007 & 16600/2010


PRADEEP SHARMA                                      ..... Petitioner
                            Through    None.

                   versus


RAJIV GARG                                        ..... Respondent
                            Through    Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.



      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR


INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 The plaintiff Rajiv Garg had filed two suits; first suit was a suit for permanent injunction which had been filed in August, 2001; his contention was that he is owner of the suit property by virtue of an agreement to sell, power of attorney and receipt dated 12.07.1999 executed by Pradeep Sharma in his favour; total consideration was `2,40,000/-; the plaintiff was in possession of the suit premises. Further contention was that on 11.12.2000, the respondent Pradeep Sharma CRP No.157/2007 Page 1 of 5 along with 7-8 per sons made an attempt to forcibly dispossess from the suit premises but because of timely intervention of the neighbors, he could not do so. In the course of these proceedings, a Local Commissioner was appointed on 09.08.2001 with a direction to verify the factum of possession of the suit premises as the contention of the respondent was that he was in possession of the suit premises; the Local Commissioner R.S. Godara furnished his report on 13.08.2001 substantiating the submission of the plaintiff that he was in possession of the suit premises. Matter was renotified. Defendant was thereafter proceedings ex-parte. On his application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') on 28.08.2001, the ex-parte order was set aside. A second Local Commissioner Arvind Sharma was appointed. Contention of the plaintiff was that in this intervening period he was getting threatening calls from the defendant who threatened him with dire consequences including his submission that he was well known to the various high-ups in the Delhi Police including the Lt. Governor and the Judges; further contention being that the plaintiff had lodged a complaint with the Police Station; Sub-Inspector Vidhu Sharma came to his office with CRP No.157/2007 Page 2 of 5 some police personnel and tried to forcibly evict him from the suit premises; goods of the plaintiff were taken away; a complaint was immediately lodged in the Police Station; proceedings under Sections 448/380/34 of the IPC were registered against the respondent on the complaint of the plaintiff. Mr. Arvind Sharma, the second Local Commissioner has also confirmed the possession of the petitioner in the premises.

2 On 28.02.2002, the second suit was filed by the plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act claiming a restoration of his possession coupled with an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code; contention was that he was forcibly dispossessed from the suit premises and he sought a restoration of the said premises. 3 Oral and documentary evidence was led on both the suits. Issues were framed which inter-alia reads as under:-

1. Whether the suit property was duly purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property before 28.8.01? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit property by the defendant on 28.8.2001? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be kept in possession of the suit property? OPP

5. Relief.

4 Issue-wise findings were returned by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced. The testimony of PW-1, the plaintiff had been considered; he was admittedly not cross-examined. The other two relevant witnesses PW-10 and PW-11 were also not cross-examined by the defendant; Ex. PW-1/2 and Ex. PW-1/3 had been relied upon to return a finding that the suit property had been purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence which was led, the finding was also returned that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property as on 28.01.2008 when he filed a suit for permanent injunction; finding was also returned that he was dispossessed from the suit property by the defendant. These findings were arrived at on the basis of the testimony of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 & PW-6; a fact finding had been arrived at on this cogent evidence that the plaintiff had been dispossessed from the suit premises and this being within the period of six months, the plaintiff is entitled for relief under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act; suit was accordingly decreed in favour of the plaintiff; suit for permanent injunction had accordingly been disposed of as having become infructuous.

5 Even otherwise, none has appeared for the petitioner. Matter has CRP No.157/2007 Page 4 of 5 been called twice. Petition is dismissed on merits as also for non- prosecution.

INDERMEET KAUR, J MARCH 28, 2012 A CRP No.157/2007 Page 5 of 5