Delhi High Court
Simranjeet Singh And Ors vs Lalit Kumar Tanwar And Ors on 1 March, 2016
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 1st March, 2016
+ FAO 419/2015
SIMRANJEET SINGH AND ORS ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.P. Ahuja, Advocate.
versus
LALIT KUMAR TANWAR AND ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.K.Sharma and Mr. Narendra
Gautam, Advocates for respondents 1, 2, 3 & 29.
Ms. Meena Kohli, Advocate for respondents 4, 5 &
32.
Ms. Ruchira, Advocate for defendants 23 & 31.
Ms. Amita Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.34.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order
dated 1.10.2015 passed by Shri R.L. Meena, Additional
District Judge-02, South-West District, Dwarka Courts,
Delhi in C.S. No. 163/2014 titled Lalit Kumar Tanwar Vs.
Jai Pal and others. By virtue of the aforesaid order, the
Additional District Judge has restrained the appellants 1 to 3
(defendants 2 to 4) from creating third party interest in the
suit properties bearing No. WZ 549-A, WZ 368 and WZ
437, Village Naraina, New Delhi till the disposal of the suit.
3. The facts of the case are not in dispute and can be seen from
the impugned order. The appellant has claimed the following
reliefs in the plaint:-
A) "A decree of declaration in favour of the
plaintiffs and against the defendant no.1, and
defendant no.2 and 3 thereby declaring the
mutation dated 6/4/2009 of the suit properties in
favour of defendant no.1 and then mutation dt.
16/11/2010 in favour of defendant no.2 and 3
and further the sale deed dated 9/9/2010
registered on 10/9/2010 as document no.11536
addl. Book no.1, vol.no. 5536 pages 163 to 169
with the Sub Registrar Kapashera, Delhi, in
favour of defendant No.2 and 3 as null and void
be directed to cancel the respective above said
documents.
B) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the
defendant no.1 to 28 from selling, part with
possession or creating any third party interest in
respect of the suit properties and respective
tenanted portions and the defendant no.1 to 5
and defendant no.31 and 32 be further restrained
from claiming any rent from other tenants i.e.
defendants no. 6 to 28 and the defendant no.6 to
28 be restrained from paying any rent of their
respective portion to the defendants no. 1, 4, 5,
31 and 32.
C) A decree of mandatory injunction in favour of
the plaintiffs and against the defendant no. 1
and 4 to 28 directing them to pay the rent to the
plaintiffs only and not to anybody else.
D) The cost of the present proceedings be also
awarded in favour of the plaintiffs and against
the defendants.
E) Any other/further relief, which the Hon‟ble
court may deem fit and proper may be please
passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants."
4. Out of these main prayers, only prayer „A‟ is the main
substantive prayer for cancellation of the sale deed dated
09.09.2010 and consequently seeking a declaration by
respondents 1, 2 and 3 herein, who are the plaintiffs in the
suit. So far as the prayer „B‟ and „C‟ are concerned i.e. for
seeking permanent injunction and mandatory injunction
against all the defendants, which includes defendants 1 to 28,
Mr. Ahuja, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the
attention of the court to the copy of the sale deed dated
09.09.2010 purported to have been executed by respondent
No.4 Jaipal. This indeed pertains to property No.WZ 437,
Village Naraina.
5. The grievance of the appellant/defendants in the present
appeal is that the relief, which has been claimed by the
respondents-plaintiffs with regard to declaration of the sale
deed dated 09.09.2010, pertains to property No.WZ 437.
Therefore, it was not only improper but illegal on the part of
the learned Additional District Judge to have passed a
restraint order against the present appellant-defendants in
respect of property Nos. WZ 549A and WZ 368, Naraina
Village, Delhi, because neither there is a prayer in the
application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC nor in the
main suit against the said properties.
6. This fact has been contested by the learned counsel for the
respondent-plaintiff, who has stated that the aforesaid ad
interim order has been passed by the Additional District
Judge only to prevent the multiplicity of proceedings
between the parties. It has also been contended that although
in the prayer clause reference has been made only to sale
deed dated 09.09.2010, but in para 2 of the plaint, a
reference is made with regard to three properties, which are
the subject matter of dispute. All these three properties were
owned by Rajbala and they have been termed to be the suit
properties and, therefore, by analogy the court taking a
proper perspective of the matter has passed a restraint order
against the appellants in respect of all the three properties.
7. During the hearing of the appeal it was also brought to the
notice of the court that so far as property No.WZ 549A and
368 are concerned, there are two separate independent suits
pending two different courts regarding the same; one at
Patiala House Court and other in the court which has passed
the impugned order. In both these suits there are separate
applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which are
under consideration of the respective courts.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions of both the
sides. The area of controversy between the parties is very
short one i.e. as to whether under the colour of prevention of
multiplicity of suit or multiplicity of litigation the Additional
District Judge could have passed an order restraining the
appellant from creating third party interest in respect of
certain properties, which were not prayed for and were not
part of the sale deed, which is sought to be declared as null
and void and further, on the basis of which a declaration is
sought by the respondents-plaintiffs. The answer to this
query has to be amphatically negative. A person cannot be
given a relief more than what he has asked for in the plaint
and further a person cannot claim relief under Order 39 Rule
1 and 2 CPC more than he has sought for in the main prayer
of the suit itself. These are the elementary principles, which
one has to observe. All these elementaries were put to the
counsel for the respondent thinking that he would voluntarily
agree to have the order set aside and permit the court to
proceed in accordance with law. However, to my dismay the
learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has not only
expressed his ignorance to these elementary principles of
law, but has rather insisted that such an order granting relief
which was not prayed for could be passed. I find myself in
total disagreement with what the learned counsel for the
respondent has stated. The learned Additional District Judge
has exceeded its powers and he had absolutely no authority
of restraining the appellants in respect of property Nos. WZ
549-A and WZ 368, Village Naraina, Delhi, which were
neither the subject matter of the prayer in the main suit, nor
any relief was claimed in the main suit or in the interim
application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.
9. I accordingly set aside the portion of the order, which has
been passed by the learned Additional District Judge vide
impugned order dated 01.10.2015, so far as it pertains to
aforesaid two properties. To that extent the order stands set
aside.
10. With these directions, the present appeal stands disposed of.
11. Copy of the order be sent to the learned trial court for
information.
V.K. SHALI, J
MARCH 01, 2016 / n
