Kiran Arora vs Sandeep Poshwal & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 2673 Del

$~ 6
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CS(OS) 968/2011
%                                        Judgment dated 23.05.2014
       KIRAN ARORA                                  ..... Plaintiff
               Through:            Mr.A.K. Sen, Advocate

                          versus

       SANDEEP POSHWAL & ORS                ..... Defendant
                Through: Dr.Surat Singh and Ms.Aishwarya
                         Jain, Advocates for applicant in I.A. 512/2014

       CORAM:
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)

1.

The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the main relief is against the defendants no.1 and 2, who are interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Plaintiff prays that the present suit be decreed under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC as despite being granted repeated opportunities, the defendants failed to file their written statement. After service, the defendants had entered appearance on 28.7.2011 and sought time to file the written statement. As written statement was not filed, further time was granted to the defendants on 28.7.2011 to file the written statement. Final opportunity was granted to the defendants on 9.11.2011 to file written statement, subject to payment of costs, however, no written statement was filed.

2. Further time was sought by counsel for the defendants on 18.4.2012 to file the written statement, however, right of the defendants to file written statement was closed on 16.7.2012.

3. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has filed the original documents. The plaint is also duly supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff.

4. As per the plaint, the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of a shop bearing No.29, Krishna Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi. The said shop was purchased from one Smt.Jasoda, w/o. Late Sh.Shyam Lal, by way of an agreement to sell, Will, GPA, affidavit, indemnity, receipt and the possession letter. The agreement to sell and Will were duly registered in favour of the plaintiff as document No.7348 entered in additional book no.1, volume 840 at page 131-133, document no.11331 entered in additional book no.III, volume no.640 at pages 145 to 146, respectively by the office of Sub-Registrar, New Delhi on 23.8.1996. A General Power of Attorney executed by the seller in favour of the husband of plaintiff, Sh.Balwant Rai Arora, was registered vide document no.12514 book no.IV, volume no.770 at pages 105 to 108 on 23.8.1996.

5. The seller applied for mutation of the suit property after death of her husband, which was granted in her favour. The seller Smt.Jasoda handed over the original lease deed and conveyance deed in favour of Shyam Lal s/o. Sh.Tillu Ram as well as death certificate of her husband to the plaintiff. The originals are in the possession of the plaintiff.

6. It is the case of the plaintiff that since the date of purchase of the shop, plaintiff has been in actual physical uninterrupted possession and the suit property is being used as a godown. The electricity connection stands in her name and she has been paying the electricity bills.

7. Counsel also submits that on 12.4.2011, the plaintiff was informed by her husband that a person, who was later on found to be defendant no.2, a property broker, had offered to purchase the suit property, and when the husband of the plaintiff refused his offer he threatened that he would

dispossess the plaintiff from the shop. Again on 20.4.2011 the guard posted in the suit premises was threatened by defendants no.1 and 2. Consequent to which a police complaint was made with regard to the threats. Similar threats were subsequently extended, which has led to filing of the present suit.

8. Summons were issued in the suit on 26.4.2011. The following interim order was passed:

"4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, defendants No.1 and 2 are restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit property by the plaintiff till the next date of hearing."

9. Counsel for the plaintiff has drawn attention of the court to the original registered agreement to sell dated 23.8.1996 which is in favour of the plaintiff, registered General Power of Attorney dated 23.8.1996 in favour of the husband of the plaintiff, Will dated 23.8.1996 duly registered in favour of the plaintiff by the seller and indemnity bond in favour of the plaintiff executed by the seller Smt.Jasoda and two receipts, evidencing payment having been received for the shop in question. Additionally possession letter and original affidavits and electricity bills have been placed on record in support of the plea that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the shop in question.

10. Taking into consideration the submissions made, the averments made in the plaint, which is duly supported by an affidavit of the plaintiff and the original documents placed on record, I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to the decree, as prayed. The present suit is accordingly, decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no.1 and 2. Interim order dated 26.4.2011 is confirmed. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.

I.A. 512/2014 (u/O1 R.10 CPC)

11. This is an application filed by Smt.Jasoda, contending that she should be impleaded as a party to the present suit.

12. Having regard to the fact that the present suit stands decreed, the present application stand dismissed. Mr.Dr.Surat Singh submits that he would seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

I.A. 6502/2011 & I.A. 2520/2012

13. In view of the order passed in suit today, the present applications stand disposed of.

G.S.SISTANI, J MAY 23, 2014 ssn