C.B.S.E. vs Shri Dharam Pal Singh & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 4292 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      R.F.A. No.330/2000

                                       Date of decision : 23.10.2009
IN THE MATTER OF :

C.B.S.E.                                          ..... Appellant
                       Through : Mr. Amit Bansal, Adv.


                  versus


Shri Dharam Pal Singh & Ors.                         ..... Respondents
                     Through: None.

CORAM

* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

     1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
        Judgment? No.

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.



HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and

decree dated 9.2.2000, passed in a suit instituted by the appellant

(plaintiff in the trial court) against the respondents (defendants in the

trial court), employees of the appellant, for permanent injunction,

praying inter alia for injuncting the respondents from shouting

slogans, holding meetings, holding demonstrations, etc., at the office

of the appellant ; from obstructing, intimidating or preventing ingress

and egress of the staff of the appellant ; from taking out any

procession, dharna or holding any demonstrations, etc., within a

radius of 25 meters from the office premises of the appellant, etc.

The cause of action for instituting the suit in the year 1989, was stated

to be the action of the respondents in extending threats and trying to

gherao the senior officers of the appellant, thus disturbing normal

functions of the appellant and holding of demonstration, etc., outside

the office of the appellant.

2. After examining the evidence, the trial court held that the

defendants could hold meeting, demonstration, dharna and peaceful

picketing, without disturbing the ingress and egress from the aforesaid

premises. However, the trial court was not convinced by the

testimony of two witnesses who appeared on behalf of the appellant,

i.e., PW-1 and PW-2 for the reason that neither of the two witnesses

stated that they had any personal knowledge about the incident which

had taken place in the year 1988-89 and nor could they identify the

employees who extended threats to the Chairman and the Secretary of

the appellant. As a result, the suit of the appellant was dismissed.

3. Much water has flown ever since. It is now two decades

since the institution of the aforesaid suit by the appellant and a decade

since the passing date of the impugned judgment. Counsel for the

appellant concedes that no cause of action survives as on date. The

appeal is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

4. Needless to state that the findings given in the impugned

judgment and decree, shall not preclude the appellant from seeking its

remedies, if any, as and when a fresh cause of action accrues in its

favour in the future.

5. Trial court record be released forthwith. File be consigned

to the record room.

HIMA KOHLI,J

OCTOBER 23, 2009/sk