Satendra Kumar Baliyan vs Smt. Sheela Srivastava & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 543 Del

      *             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                            Date of Order: February 01, 2010
+ CM(M) 135/2010
%                                                                01.02.2010
     Satendra Kumar Baliyan                              ...Petitioner
     Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Advocate

          Versus

          Smt. Sheela Srivastava & Ors.                                      ...Respondents

Through:

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?

ORAL

1. The present petition reflects how the petitioner an advocate indulged

into malpractices, highhandedness and illegal trespass and then is trying to prolong

the case. The petitioner, who is an advocate, taking benefit of the trust of his client

occupied a room in the property of the respondent and when respondent filed a suit

for possession, the petitioner took a plea of an oral agreement to sell and payment of

cash consideration without receipt. After evidence of some of the plaintiff witnesses

had been recorded, he made an application under Order XI Rule 12 read with Order

VII CPC Rule 1 CPC for discovery and production of a power of attorney alleging that

plaintiffs were not the co-owner of the property. He submitted that a complaint was

filed against him before the Bar Council and during proceedings, he came across a

photocopy of general power of attorney and this general power of attorney has

material bearing on the title of the plaintiff's. It is also stated that on demise of Shri

Shankar Singh, one of his daughters namely Smt. Usha Shankar Singh became the

absolute owner of the property. The trial court disallowed the application

of the petitioner since the case of the petitioner in the written statement

was that brother of plaintiff had allowed him to stay in the suit property

CM(M) 135/2010 Satinder Kr. Baliyan v Smt. Sheela Srivasatava & Ors. Page 1 Of 2 until completion of construction on the first floor, for which he had oral agreement

to sell. He has not claimed any kind of title or right in respect of the portion in which

he was presently there and his position, admittedly was that of a trespasser. The trial

court found that the application was devoid of any merits and dismissed the same.

2. The order of learned trial court does not suffer from any irregularity. The

petitioner has not claimed any right in the ground floor of the property and has relied

upon an oral agreement to sell in respect of first floor of the property. The evidence

recorded so far shows that the petitioner was maintaining a bank account during the

period when he claimed an oral agreement to sell was entered into and he paid the

consideration in cash but in his bank account even the minimum balance was not

there. The trial court rightly looked into the evil design of the petitioner of delaying

the matter and perpetuating fraud. This petition has no force and is hereby

dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court.

February 01, 2010                                     SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




CM(M) 135/2010       Satinder Kr. Baliyan v Smt. Sheela Srivasatava & Ors.   Page 2 Of 2