Urmil Gupta vs Arun Kumar Narda
2015 Latest Caselaw 3423 Del

$~10.
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    CS(OS) 2351/2011 and I.A. 15202/2011, 5153/2012,
     21809/2012, O.A. 144/2014 and I.A. 25671/2014

     URMIL GUPTA                                  ..... Plaintiff
                       Through: Mr. K.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate
                       with Mr. Rakesh Kumar and Mr. Chetan Dutt,
                       Advocates

                       versus


     ARUN KUMAR NARDA                           ..... Defendant
                   Through: Mr. Vipin Jai, Advocate

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                       ORDER

% 28.04.2015

1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit praying inter alia that

a decree of permanent injunction be passed against the defendant,

restraining him from forcibly/illegally dispossessing her from the suit

premises bearing plot No.A-50, Jawahar Enclave, Swarup Nagar Ext.

(also known as Sardhanand Colony), Delhi.

2. The plaint was registered and summons were issued in the suit

on 21.09.2011. On the same date, at the request of the counsel for

the plaintiff, a Local Commissioner was appointed to visit the suit

premises to verify the status of possession. In the meantime, status

quo in respect of the suit property was directed to be maintained in

terms of the Local Commissioner's report. The Local Commissioner had

executed the commission and submitted a report dated 27.09.2011

observing inter alia that it appeared prima facie that the suit premises

is in the possession of the plaintiff.

3. Thereafter, the defendant entered appearance through counsel

and has filed a written statement dated 16.11.2011, wherein it has

been stated in the preliminary objection that the present suit is devoid

of a cause of action against the defendant. Further, the defendant has

stated that he is not the owner of the suit premises and it is owned

and possessed by his sister-in-law, Smt. Pooja Narda. It has also been

stated in para 3 of the preliminary objections that the premises

allegedly owned and possessed by the plaintiff is different and

separate from the property of Smt.Pooja Narda, who is the owner of

the property measuring 1008 sq. yards situated in Khasra No.15/13,

village Samepur, Delhi.

4. Counsel for the defendant does not deny the fact that his client

is neither the owner nor in possession of the suit premises. Instead, it

is the defendant's case that the suit is not maintainable against his

client. He states that his client has neither tried to dispossess the

plaintiff from the suit premises in the past and nor does he intend to

do so in future.

5. In view of the admissions made by the defendant and noted

above, it is deemed appropriate to decree the present suit under Order

XII Rule 6 CPC by recording the statement of the counsel for the

defendant to the effect that the defendant has neither attempted to

dispossess the plaintiff from the suit premises and nor shall he do so

in future.

6. Needless to state that while disposing of the suit, the Court is

refraining from making any observation with regard to the title of

Ms.Pooja Narda in the property mentioned in para 2 of the preliminary

objection of the written statement filed by the defendant. If there is

any dispute as to the identity of the said property, then it is for the

owner thereof to seek her remedies in accordance with law.

7. The suit is disposed of alongwith the pending application.

Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

HIMA KOHLI, J APRIL 28, 2015 rkb