Delhi High Court
Gayyur vs Shahida Parveen & Anr. on 10 August, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: August 10, 2011
+ CM ((M) No. 710/2011, CM Appl. Nos. 11507-
11508/2011 and CM Appl. No. 11803/2011
GAYYUR ...........Appellant
Through: Mr. Ashok Sapra, Advocate
Versus
SHAHIDA PARVEEN & ANR. ..........Respondents
Through: Mr. A.K. Mishra, Adv. for resp. no.1
Mr. Maninder Jeet Singh, Adv. for resp. no.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. Respondent no. 2 has also been served. Copy of the
paper book has been furnished to him.
2. The order impugned before this court is the order dated
11th May, 2011 vide which the application filed by the
plaintiff seeking permission of the court to deposit the keys
of the suit premises in the court or in alternate to hand them
over to defendant no. 1 had been dismissed; the plaintiff had
been granted last opportunity to hand over the peaceful
possession of the suit premises to defendant no. 2.
3. The record shows that the present suit has been filed
by Shahida Parveen against two defendants; the contention
is that she is the owner of the suit property; defendant no.2
is a trespasser and is in illegal possession of the suit
property. Both the defendants had been proceeded ex parte.
Ex parte decree had been passed in favour of the plaintiff
vide judgment dated 5th March, 2009. This ex parte decree
was the subject matter of challenge by defendant no.2; he
had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code;
this application was allowed on 6th October, 2009. The ex
parte decree had been set aside.
4. The contentions of the respective parties had been
delved into; the court had recorded a finding that before
proceeding with the suit, the possession of the suit property
be restored back to defendant no. 2. This order dated 6th
October, 2009 had been assailed in an appeal before the
Additional District Judge who had dismissed it vide judgment
dated 18th December, 2009. Civil revision had been
preferred before the High Court which had been disposed of
on 8th January, 2010 endorsing the finding contained in the
order dated 6th October, 2009 as the plaintiff had sought
permission of the court to withdraw the said revision
petition; the order dated 6th October, 2009 whereby the
directions had been given to the plaintiff to hand over the
keys of the suit property to defendant no.2 stood re-
endorsed.
5. On 24th May, 2010, a second revision petition assailing
the same order i.e. the order dated 6th October, 2009 had
also been disposed of as the plaintiff had sought permission
to withdraw the said petition as well.
6. Thereafter, a review petition had been filed by the
plaintiff assailing the order dated 6th October, 2009; this had
also been dismissed on 16th October, 2010. The order dated
6th October, 2009 stood re-affirmed whereby the plaintiff had
been directed to hand over the keys of the suit premises to
defendant no.2. The application filed by the plaintiff seeking
modification of the order with a direction to deposit the keys
in the court or in the alternate to hand over the keys to
defendant no. 1 had also been dismissed vide impugned
order dated 11th May, 2011.
7. This order is the subject matter of this present petition.
On specific query put to learned counsel for the petitioner as
to what is his grievance in this petition, he has no answer.
His contention is that he had not been given a fair
opportunity of hearing.
8. The written statement filed by the petitioner/defendant
no. 1 cannot be lost sight of; in his written statement he had
stated that the defendant no. 1/petitioner has nothing to do
with the tenanted premises and the same is in the unlawful
possession of defendant no.2.
In para 6 on merits, he had been stated that the
petitioner was never in possession of the suit property; he
was not liable to pay any rent to the plaintiff. All these
contentions had weighed in the mind of the Trial Judge
before recording its finding in the order dated 6th October,
2009 whereby the keys of the suit premises had been
directed to be handed over to defendant no. 2.
9. The contention of the defendant no. 2 all along was that
he is the owner of the suit premises in his own right; he had
never agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff as is the
contention of the plaintiff; all this had been dealt with and
considered by the court while dealing with the application
under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code which had been allowed
on 6th October, 2009.
10. The contention of the plaintiff is that he had purchased
this property vide documents dated 24th October, 2003 which
is the General Power of Attorney and Agreement to Sell; this
was never the case of the plaintiff when he filed his reply to
the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code.
11. Be that as it may, the order dated 6th October, 2009, by
virtue of which the plaintiff had been directed to hand over
the keys of the suit premises to defendant no. 2 has long
since attained a finality; almost all forums have been
exhausted; the order dated 6th October, 2009 has been re-
affirmed and re-endorsed. The said order does not suffer
from any infirmity, it warrants no interference by this court.
12. The keys which are lying deposited before the trial
court are directed to be handed over to defendant no.2.
Neither party shall obstruct or interfere in this transaction.
Petition disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 10, 2011
sd
