Delhi High Court
Sh. Sital Dass Rakyan And Anr. vs Sh. Jain Khartargachh Sangh ... on 22 August, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003 VIAD Delhi 144, AIR 2004 Delhi 15, 106 (2003) DLT 436, 2003 (71) DRJ 653
Author: H Malhotra
Bench: H Malhotra
JUDGMENT
H.R. Malhotra, J.
1. This is an application made by defendants No. 1 and 2 under the provision of Order 39 2A CPC and also another application under Order 39 Rule 2A , Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking action against the plaintiffs for flouting the orders of the Court passed on 2nd March, 2001 to the effect that status quo in respect of the property in question be maintained. It is the grievance of defendants No. 1 and 2 that despite such order, the plaintiff No. 1 has started construction in the suit property.
2. Plaintiffs have filed reply to this application denying the allegations made in the application and further denying that the plaintiffs were prohibited from making any construction or renovation in the suit property in question i.e. temple.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on both the applications. For the purposes of dealing with these applications it is essential to look into the plaint. Plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from entering upon the suit property and also from interfering with or trying to take possession of the suit property. Plaintiffs claimed physical possession of the property of the Dadabari Temple i.e. the suit property under the control of plaintiff No. 2 i.e. the trust. Plaint further speaks that defendants have been trying to interfere with the peaceful possession, management and the control of the suit property. Reading of the plaint in entirety shows that the plaintiff apprehended dispossession at the hands of the defendants and therefore, necessity arose for filing the instant suit.
4. The Court appointed Local Commissioner with the directions to report to the Court regarding the possession and management of the temple complex. The Local Commissioner after having inspected the suit property submitted the report to the effect that plaintiff appeared to be in possession of all the keys of the property measuring about four acres. The Court thereafter ordered for maintaining status quo in respect of the property in question.
5. Reading of the plaint as also report of the Local Commissioner and orders passed by this Court on 2nd March, 2001 about maintaining the status quo in respect of the property in question shows that injunction order passed by the Court was only in respect of maintaining possessory right in respect of the property in question. Such orders were passed against the defendants only as the plaintiff apprehended dispossession at the hands of the defendants and therefore, it is quite obvious that the Court protected the rights of the plaintiff so as to prevent the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property.
6. True, the plaintiff should have sought approval by way of abundant precaution of the Court before commencing any construction but their act cannot attract the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A as there was no stay operating against the plaintiff about raising of construction or making any renovation of the suit property. Therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have willfully disobeyed the orders passed by this Court on 2nd March, 2001. The applications filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 2A merits dismissal. Dismissed as such. However, the plaintiff shall not raise further construction in the suit property without having orders from the Court in this regard.
S. No. 61/2001
7. List on 10th September, 2003.
