Dr. Tilak Raj Jaggi vs Smt. Priya Rani & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 4603 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                         Date of Reserve: October 30, 2009
                                                          Date of Order: November 11, 2009

+IA Nos. 10572/2002, 3018/1996, 1061/2001 & 620/2006 in CS(OS) 749/1996

%                                                                   11.11.2009
        Dr. Tilak Raj Jaggi                                 ...Plaintiff
        Through: Mr. Kamal Mehta with Mr. Deependra Sharma, Advocates

        Versus

        Smt. Priya Rani & Ors.                                           ...Defendants
        Through: Mr. Raaj Malhotra, Advocate for D-1 to 4.
                 Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate for D-6.


        JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.      Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.      Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


        ORDER

IA 10572/2002

1. This application under Order 39 Rule 2-A read with Section 151 of Code of Civil

Procedure has been preferred by defendant no.6 i.e. Mr. Sudesh Kumar Jaggi alleging

therein violation of the order dated 27th March 1996 passed by this Court on an

application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

2. Plaintiff Mr. Tilak Raj Jaggi filed a suit for partition, rendition of accounts and

permanent injunction against 8 defendants. Along with the suit, an application was filed

under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. In the application, he made a prayer that an ex parte interim

order be passed restraining defendants or any one of them from illegally or forcibly

CS(OS) 749 of 1996 Dr. Tilak Raj Jaggi vs. Smt. Priya Rani Jaggi & Ors Page 1 Of 7 dispossessing plaintiff from the premises bearing number 1113, Main Bazar, Paharganj,

New Delhi and from premises bearing number 751-53, Gali Dorewali, Paharganj, New

Delhi. The other prayer was to restrain defendants from selling, mortgaging or otherwise

encumbering the properties which were the subject matter of the suit. At the time of

issuing notice of the application, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo

with regard to the properties. This order of status quo was given in view of the prayer

made by the plaintiff that he be not forcibly dispossessed and the properties mentioned

above be not encumbered. Defendants no.1 to 6 filed a joint written statement to the

plaint and defendants no.7 and 8, who were sisters of plaintiff remained ex parte and

hence were proceeded ex parte. Later on, some disputes arose between defendants no.1 to

6 inter se. In the present application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, it is alleged by

defendant no.6 that defendant no.1 in violation of the order of maintaining status quo put

her locks on the premises bearing number 791-94, Gali Dorewali, Paharganj, New Delhi

and property bearing number C-37/1, Lawrence Road, Delhi. These properties were under

lock and keys of defendant no.6 and defendant no.1 by putting her locks violated the

order of maintaining status quo.

3. I consider that the present application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC is not

maintainable. The status quo order was only in concern to the application moved by the

plaintiff and it was not a blanket status quo order regarding disputes of defendants inter

se. A perusal of record would show that defendant no.1 and 6 were earlier partners in a

partnership firm. Defendant no.1 sought certain accounts from defendant no.6 and also

sought dissolution of the partnership firm namely 'Jaggi Ayurvedic Pharmacy' and in

view of the disputes between the partners of Jaggi Ayurvedic Pharmacy she being a

partner put her locks on the premises of the partnership firm over the locks of other

partner alleging that the other partners had put lock on a room inside the premises where

the account books and other records of partnership firm were lying and she was not

CS(OS) 749 of 1996 Dr. Tilak Raj Jaggi vs. Smt. Priya Rani Jaggi & Ors Page 2 Of 7 allowed to inspect the account books and the record. Another suit has already been filed

by her regarding dissolution of the partnership firm. I, therefore, consider that disputes

inter se partners, in respect of the partnership properties cannot be a reason to invoke

status quo order issued by this Court concerning the premises under use of plaintiff. The

present application is, therefore, dismissed.

IA 3018 of 1996 & IA 1060 of 2001

1. This application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC has

been preferred by plaintiff wherein he sought restrain order against defendants that during

pendency of instant suit, the plaintiff who was residing in property bearing number 751-

53, Gali Dorewali, Paharganj, New Delhi be not dispossessed by other defendants. It is

stated that defendant no.6 with his family members was also residing along with the

plaintiff in the same premises and defendant no.6 attempted to forcibly dispossess the

plaintiff. The other prayer was that plaintiff was in possession, use and enjoyment of

tenanted premises bearing number 1113, Main Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi and was

running his medical practice there and he should not be forcibly dispossessed from this

tenanted premises. It is also prayed that defendants should be restrained from alienating,

transferring or encumbering the properties:

        (i).    House No.751-53, Gali Dore Wali, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi.
        (ii)    House No.F-14/17, Krishan Nagar, Delhi
        (iii)   House no.791-94, Gali Dore Wali, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi
        (vi)    Property No.C-37/1, Lawrence Road, Delhi
        (v)     Industrial Plot No.B-1/A-23/E in Mohan Cooperative, Industrial Estate,
                Delhi
        (vi)    Rented shop no.1113, Main Bazar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi




CS(OS) 749 of 1996 Dr. Tilak Raj Jaggi vs. Smt. Priya Rani Jaggi & Ors    Page 3 Of 7

2. It is stated by defendants no. 1 to 6 in their earlier response when they jointly filed

WS that the properties mentioned by plaintiff above were not self-acquired properties of

Mr. Gyan Chand Jaggi. It is stated that the suit itself was not maintainable and that there

had never been a joint family or joint family business. It is submitted that Mr. Gyan

Chand Jaggi had executed a Will and whatever properties he had, he bequeathed

according to his Will to different persons and this fact was in the knowledge of plaintiff.

The suit was not maintainable in respect of property no. C-37/1, Lawrence Road, Delhi

since this property belonged to the firm 'Jaggi Ayurvedic Pharmacy'. The plot was

allotted to Jaggi Ayurvedic Pharmacy and the construction was also done over it by the

firm Jaggi Ayurvedic Pharmacy, after death of late Shri Gyan Chand Jaggi. The suit was

also not maintainable in respect of shop bearing number 1113, Main Bazar, Pahar Ganj,

New Delhi since this shop was under tenancy of Shri Gyan Chand Jaggi and after death

the landlord transferred the tenancy in favour of Rukmani Devi, Sudesh Kumar Jaggi, Mr.

Darshan Lal Jaggi, Om Prakash Jaggi and Mr. Tilak Raj Jaggi. The plaintiff was not the

exclusive tenant. It is stated that the property was deliberately included by plaintiff to

counterblast the suit 725 of 1994 titled as Smt. Priya Rani Jaggi and Others vs. Mr. Tilak

Raj Jaggi.

3. It has not been disputed in response by defendants that plaintiff was in possession

of Shop bearing number 1113, Main Bazar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi and was running its

clinic from there. It has also not been denied that plaintiff was living in property bearing

number 751-53, Gali Dore Wali, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. Since the parties are litigating

inter se from long time and it has yet to be adjudicated as to who will be entitled to which

property, I consider that it would be appropriate that the plaintiff should not be

dispossessed forcibly from the shop bearing number 1113, Main Bazar, Pahar Ganj, New

Delhi wherein he is running his clinic and from using the property bearing number 751-

CS(OS) 749 of 1996 Dr. Tilak Raj Jaggi vs. Smt. Priya Rani Jaggi & Ors Page 4 Of 7 53, Gali Dore Wali, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi where he is residing. It would also be

appropriate that till the rights of the parties are determined in different properties, the

parties should not sell off, alienate or create any third party interest, mortgage any of the

properties in question. This suit as well as other suits inter se parties are pending for the

last about 13 to 15 years and the suits are not proceedings because of the attitude of the

parties. It would be appropriate that the parties should complete their evidence instead of

making one or the other application.

4. IA 1060 of 2001 is accordingly dismissed and IA 3018 of 1996 is hereby allowed

in above terms.

IA 620 of 2006

1. This application under Section 151 read with Order 26 Rule IX and XI of CPC has

been preferred by defendants no.1 to 4 for directing Mr. S.B. Vohra, Local Commissioner

to carry out the inspection as per order dated November 22, 2004 of (a) two inter

connected room on first floor of the house no.751-53, Gali Dore Wali, Pahar Ganj, New

Delhi (b) 791-94, Gali Dore Wali, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi (c) C-37/1, Lawrence Road,

Delhi. It is also prayed that the Local Commissioner be directed to relock the premises

after carrying out inspection and the Court should issue directions regarding safe custody

of books of account, computers, books, articles, merchandise etc.

2. It is submitted that defendant no.1 was constrained to put her lock at doors of the

partnership properties being a partner of the partnership firm and in possession of these

properties as a matter of her right since her rights were being invaded by other partners. It

is submitted that this Court had appointed the Local Commissioner to inspect the

properties after giving due notice to the counsel for all the parties to ascertain nature and

CS(OS) 749 of 1996 Dr. Tilak Raj Jaggi vs. Smt. Priya Rani Jaggi & Ors Page 5 Of 7 user of the properties and to prepare an inventory of goods, articles, merchandise.

Defendants no.5 and 6 who were aggrieved by this order filed a review petition. This

Court dismissed the review application on 25th October 2005. However, the Local

Commissioner sent a letter to the counsel for defendant no.1 to 4 informing him that he

will visit the property on 14th October 2005 at 2 pm and other two properties at Pahar

Ganj on 17th October 2005 at 2 pm. The notice itself was received by the counsel for

defendant no.1 to 5 after 14th October 2005 at his office and therefore no one could be

present on behalf of defendant no.2 to 4 at the time of inspection. Defendant no.1 was

present when the Local Commissioner reached there and before opening the locks she

asked the Local Commissioner whether he would relock the premises, this was denied by

the Local Commissioner and due to this reason defendant no.1 did not open the locks as

the premises could not be left open after inspection. She submits that the property in

question was the subject matter of a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of

accounts pending in this Court filed by defendant no.1 and the suit premises if he not

been re-locked there was likelihood that other defendants would have tampered with the

records.

3. In my view, this application is a frivolous application. The report of Local

Commissioner categorically shows that the defendants refused to open the locks. The

Local Commissioner could not in any manner be concerned with relocking the premises.

The Local Commissioner had only to inspect the premises and prepare an inventory.

Whosoever would have opened the premises, would have also been at liberty to relock the

same. The plea that counsel for defendant no.1 received notice subsequent to inspection

on 14th October 2005 is also belied from the report of the Local Commissioner. Even

otherwise, the Local Commissioner had carried the Court order with him and shown the

same to defendants and their counsel and other well wishers who had gathered at the site.

CS(OS) 749 of 1996 Dr. Tilak Raj Jaggi vs. Smt. Priya Rani Jaggi & Ors Page 6 Of 7 The attitude of defendants has been recorded by the Local Commissioner in his report. In

view of the report of the Local Commissioner, I consider it does not lie in the mouth of

defendants to ask for re-inspection or to plead that they were very cooperative.

I find no force in this application. The application is hereby dismissed.

CS(OS) 749/1996

List on 18th December 2009.

November 11, 2009                                          SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




CS(OS) 749 of 1996 Dr. Tilak Raj Jaggi vs. Smt. Priya Rani Jaggi & Ors      Page 7 Of 7