Delhi High Court
Amit Pahuja vs Ved Prakash Pahuja & Ors. on 7 December, 2011
Author: Manmohan Singh
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
Order decided on: 07.12.2011
+ I.A. No.3275/2009 in CS (OS) No.1199/2007
AMITA PAHUJA ..... Plaintiff
Through Dr. Sarbjit Sharma, Adv. with
Ms. Sakshi Manchanda &
Ms. Sonal Jain, Advs.
versus
VED PRAKASH PAHUJA & ORS ..... Defendants
Through Mr. Rajat Aneja, Adv. for
applicants/defendants No.1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The above-mentioned application has been filed by defendants No.1
& 2, under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A read with Section 151 CPC, for
initiating contempt proceedings against the plaintiff for violation of the
status-quo order dated 09.07.2007.
2. The plaintiff filed the present suit for permanent injunction in respect
of the property bearing No.L-10, Sriniwaspuri, J.J. Colony, New Delhi
against the three defendants, namely, Ved Prakash Pahuja, Swaranlata
Pahuja, defendants No.1 & 2 (the present applicants) who are the father-in-
I.A. No.3275/2009 in CS(OS) No.1199/2007 Page No.1 of 3
law and mother-in-law respectively of the plaintiff and Alok Pahuja,
defendant No.3 who is the husband of the plaintiff. The following prayer
was made in the suit:-
"A decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff
and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants,
their agents, servants, employees and representatives from
dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property bearing
No.L-10, 2nd Floor, Sriniwaspuri, J.J. Colony, New Delhi,
and/or interfering in any manner whatsoever in her peaceful
possession of the said property."
3. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants No.1 & 2 have filed
the present application. It is stated therein that despite of status-quo order
dated 09.07.2007, the plaintiff in violation of the said order is trying to take
forcible possession of the third floor which was not having at the time of
institution of the suit. The contention of defendants No.1 & 2 is that the
plaintiff was only in possession of the second floor when the suit was filed,
as admitted by the plaintiff in paragraph-10 of the plaint. Even the Local
Commissioner was appointed who had also given his report that the
plaintiff was residing on the second floor of the suit property when the
interim order was passed.
4. Mr. Aneja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants has
pointed out various contradictory statements made by the plaintiff in the
pleadings. On the other hand, Dr. Sarbjit Sharma, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the plaintiff has referred paragraph-8 of the written
statement wherein defendant No.3 has admitted that as far as the third floor
of the suit property is concerned, the same was already in the occupation of
I.A. No.3275/2009 in CS(OS) No.1199/2007 Page No.2 of 3
the tenant and the plaintiff was receiving rent by pressurizing defendants
No.1 & 2. Dr. Sharma has also stated that the defendants have also filed
an independent suit in Saket Court for possession of the suit property
regarding the second and third floor thereof.
5. In view of the contentions raised by both the parties in support of
their submissions in the present application coupled with the fact that the
suit has already been withdrawn by the plaintiff, the prayer sought by the
defendants No.1 & 2 cannot be granted, rather the present application is
disposed of with the direction that the suit filed by the defendants will
continue without the merit or demerit of the contentions raised by the
parties in the present application and the same may be decided
independently, as per the evidence placed by the parties.
6. No further orders are required on this application. The same is
accordingly disposed of.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
DECEMBER 07, 2011/ka
I.A. No.3275/2009 in CS(OS) No.1199/2007 Page No.3 of 3
