Mukesh Shankar & Ors vs Rohit Chhabra & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 5462 Del

          THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                                      Judgment delivered on: 14.11.2011

+      FAO(OS) 511/2011 & CM 19517/2011


MUKESH SHANKAR & ORS                                         ..... Appellant

                     versus

ROHIT CHHABRA & ORS                                          ..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:-

For the Appellant : Mr C. Mukund with Mr Avneesh Garg, Advocates

For the Respondent : Mr J.P. Sengh, Sr. Advocate with Ms Ankita Gupta, Advocates

CORAM:-

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MS JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

1. Whether 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?

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 14.09.2011

passed in I.A. No. 2497/2009 in CS(OS) No.459/2006. The

application (IA No.2497/2009) had been filed by the appellants who

were arrayed as defendant nos 7 to 9 in the said suit. The application

sought modification of the status quo order dated 18.10.2006 on the

ground that the appellants be permitted to carry out the

repair/renovation work in the premises in question as also to install

meat processing machines so that they can carry on their business.

2. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the

application primarily on the ground that the transaction between

defendant no.1 and the present appellants (defendant nos 7 to 9) was

itself under a cloud. As observed in the impugned order, the

defendant no.1 had sold the suit property during the pendency of the

suit. It is also noted in the impugned order that the defendant no.1 had

got his name mutated in the records of the DDA on the basis of a will

allegedly left by late Sh. Thakur Das Chhabra. It is the case of the

plaintiff (the respondent no.1 herein) that the said defendant no.1 got

the property mutated in his name illegally and fraudulently inspite of

the fact that the said plaintiff had filed objections with the DDA

through the letter dated 21.03.2006. It has been observed in the

impugned order that the DDA had informed the court that, prima

facie, fraud had been committed in the mutation process and it is also

noted that it is an admitted position that DDA has cancelled the

mutation in the name of defendant no.1 and, consequently, the

conveyance deed executed in favour of defendant no.7 to 9 (the

appellants herein) has also been cancelled. It is another matter that the

present appellants (defendant nos 7 to 9) have filed a separate suit

CS(OS) No.1791/2008 challenging the cancellation of the conveyance

deed which is pending before a Single Judge of this Court.

3. It is in this backdrop, when there is a cloud over the title of the

appellants over the suit property, that the application for modification

of the status quo order dated 18.10.2006 was dismissed.

4. We may also note that when the said order dated 18.10.2006

was passed, the present appellants (defendant no.7 to 9) were not party

to the suit. However, they were subsequently impleaded on

25.09.2008. Throughout, the proceedings till the impugned order

dated 14.09.2011 came to be passed, the appellants have been

participating in the same. It has been observed in the impugned order

that on 21.09.2007, when their impleadment was pending, it was

stated on behalf of the defendant nos 7 to 9 (the appellants herein) that

the property was in their possession and that they were aware of the

interim order and further that the property had not to be dealt with in

any manner including either by way of reconstruction or parting with

the possession or further transfer of title. This also makes it clear that

even prior to their formal impleadment, the appellants (defendant no.7

to 9) had been bound down by the court. In view of the foregoing, we

see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and consequently,

the appeal is dismissed. Any observations made in this order with

regard to the merits of the matter are only of a prima facie nature and

are not to be looked into at the time of the decision on merits in the

pending suit.

Dasti.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

VEENA BIRBAL, J NOVEMBER 14, 2011 srb