Mohinder Kumar Mehra vs Roop Rani Mehra & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 2062 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                    RESERVED ON : MARCH 04, 2015
                                    DECIDED ON : MARCH 10, 2015

+      REVIEW PET.73/2015 in CS(OS) 2082/2009

       MOHINDER KUMAR MEHRA                     ..... Plaintiff
                   Through : Mr.Mohit Gupta, Advocate.

                             VERSUS

       ROOP RANI MEHRA & ORS.                    ..... DefendantS
                    Through : Mr.Vidit Gupta, Advocate with
                             defendant No.1 present in person.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. The plaintiff seeks review of the Order dated 29.01.2015 as

the relief sought by him in IA No.10523/2014 was omitted to be granted.

Order dated 31.07.2014 did not adjudicate plaintiff‟s actual grievance

regarding installation of iron gate on the second floor and putting it under

lock, obstructing his access to his water-tank on the terrace.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the file. The instant suit for partition and permanent injunction

was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants in 2009. Both the

parties have already concluded their respective evidence. The matter was

listed for final disposal on 14.02.2014. The plaintiff raised an issue for

disposal of IA No.1001/2011 (Order 6 Rule 17 CPC). After recording

certain observations, the matter was listed in the category of "Short

Cause" for 22nd May, 2014. Instead of addressing final arguments,

various IAs were filed. After disposal of IA No.1001/2011 by the

impugned order dated 29.01.2015, again IA No.2796/2015 filed by the

plaintiff seeking amendment resulted in its dismissal with cost `10,000/-

by an order dated 09.02.2015 and the matter was listed for hearing on

19.03.2015 in the category of "Short Cause". It is relevant to note that

defendant No.1 is a senior citizen, aged around 85 years. IA

No.4606/2014 was filed by the plaintiff to restrain defendant No.1 from

raising any construction on the property in March, 2014. It was disposed

of after directing parties to maintain „status quo‟ to the newly constructed

portion also by an order dated 21.03.2014. IA No.5299/2014 filed by

defendant No.2 was also disposed of with certain directions to redress his

grievance regarding access to the water tanks on the top terrace. The said

directions were also made applicable vis-a-vis the plaintiff and his water

tanks also. Subsequently, both plaintiff and defendant No.2 filed

Contempt applications i.e. IA No.10523/2014 and IA No.9982/2014

respectively; IA No.10523/2014 was treated as an application under

Section 151 CPC. This IA was moved on 24.05.2014 primarily to initiate

proceedings against defendant No.1 for non-compliance of the directions

contained in the order dated 21.03.2014. It was further alleged that

defendant Nos. 1 and 5 had installed a metal door frame on the second

floor just near the plaintiff‟s entrance door to obstruct his access to the

terrace and water tank kept there. They have put a lock on this door.

Another grievance raised was regarding putting a lock from outside on the

heavy iron net (jaal) made by the plaintiff at the shaft on their floor for

safety purpose.

3. This IA 10523/2014 was not pressed for disposal by the

plaintiff when IA No.9982/2014 filed by defendant No.2 under Order

XXXIX Rule 2A was taken up for hearing on 31.07.2014. The IA was

finally taken up for hearing on 16.12.2014 and was disposed of by the

impugned order. Apparently, neither in the order dated 21.03.2014 nor

31.07.2014 any directions were given regarding the iron gate allegedly

installed on the second floor by defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 was

given permission to raise construction as per sanctioned plan at his own

risk and cost by an order dated 21.03.2014. In IA No.10523/2014, it was

not specifically disclosed as to on which date the said iron gate on the

second floor was installed. The said IA was only to initiate proceedings

against defendant No.1 for non-compliance of the directions contained in

the order dated 21.03.2014.

4. I am of the considered view that the scope of interim relief

under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC or Order 39 Rule 2A cannot be

enlarged unnecessarily particularly when no such relief has been sought in

the main suit. It appears that the plaintiff‟s only intention is to prolong the

disposal of the suit by filing one or the other IA. The application lacks

merits and is dismissed with cost of ` 10,000/-.

CS(OS) 2082/2009

List on 19.03.2015 before the Roster Bench, the date already

fixed.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MARCH 10, 2015 sa