Harish K. Chopra & Ors. vs Nct Of Delhi
2011 Latest Caselaw 306 Del

               *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI




                                 Date of Order: 19th January, 2011

                                     + W.P(Crl) No. 31/2011
%                                                                                19.01.2011
         Harish K. Chopra & Ors.                               ...Petitioners

         Versus

         NCT of Delhi                                          ...Respondent

Counsels:

Mr. Vikas Jain for petitioners.

Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent.

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. This criminal writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

read with Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioners for issuance of writ,

order in the nature of mandamus directing the status quo ante and directing restoration

of the possession of the premises bearing number P-90/8 First Floor and P-90/9 Second

Floor, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110 001 to the petitioners from where petitioners

have been illegally dispossessed.

2. It is an undisputed fact that the civil litigation is going on between the parties and

Civil Suit No. 1445 of 2006 filed by the petitioners was pending and was fixed for hearing

on 7th January 2011. However, respondents who had filed Suit No.972 of 2006 withdrew

the same. The property in question is in possession of the bank. A criminal writ petition

W.P(Crl.) 31 of 2011 Page 1 Of 2 for repossession of the property in respect of which litigation is already going on between

the parties is not maintainable. Even otherwise also a criminal writ petition for

repossession of the property on the ground that the petitioners have been illegally

dispossessed cannot be entertained by this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India. The possession can be restored only as per law. Where disputed

questions of facts are involved, the writ petition is not the appropriate remedy. In this

case, the petitioners are out of possession of the property in question since 2006 and

litigation is going on between the parties since 2006. Suddenly now the petitioners have

preferred the present writ petition seeking re-possession alleging that respondent Union

Bank of India had illegally taken possession of the premises in question under a Memo

of Understanding on 3rd September 2008 by breaking open the locks. The petition is

hereby dismissed being not maintainable.

January 19, 2011                                        SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd




W.P(Crl.) 31 of 2011                                                      Page 2 Of 2