Om Prakash Sharma vs Shri Krishan (Deceased) Thr. Lrs
2012 Latest Caselaw 1133 Del

*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     RSA 41/1987

%                                            Date of Decision: 17.02.2012


OM PRAKASH SHARMA                                            ..... Appellant
               Through :                Mr J.K. Seth, Sr. Advocate with
                                        Ms Kriti Arora, Advocate

                   versus

SHRI KRISHAN (DECEASED) THR. LRS      ..... Respondent
                 Through  Mr S.K. Dubey with Mr Vibhor
                          Gupta, Adv. for intervener.
                          Mr A. Rasheed Qureshi, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

VEENA BIRBAL, J.(ORAL)
*

CM 17620/2011 (by intervenor)

The counsel for intervener/applicant wants to file rejoinder as it is stated that copy of reply has been supplied only on 15.02.2012. Let rejoinder be filed within four weeks.

List on 23.07.2012.

CM No. 15233/2011 (for status quo)

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that vide order dated 3rd June, 1987, this court restrained the respondent from selling, alienating or parting with possession of the property, subject matter of the appeal or from making any additions or alterations in the same. It is stated that the said

order continued during the pendency of the appeal. Vide judgment dated 30th January, 2009, the appeal was accepted. Aggrieved with the said order, respondent filed an appeal before the Apex Court wherein the order of this court accepting the appeal, has been set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal of the second appeal in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is contended that as the matter has been directed to be heard afresh, the order dated 3 rd June, 1987 which continued during the pendency of appeal, may be continued.

It is also submitted that after the disposal of the matter by the Supreme Court, number of persons have started visiting the suit property and are making enquiries and the appellant apprehends that respondents may not alienate or create third party interest in the same.

No reply to this application has been filed nor the application is opposed orally.

In the interest of justice, parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of suit property during the pendency of the appeal.

Application stands disposed of.

VEENA BIRBAL, J FEBRUARY 17, 2012 ssb