Delhi High Court
Hans Raj (Deceased) Through Lrs vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ... on 26 April, 2018
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 26th April, 2018
+ CM (M) 25/2015
HANS RAJ (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Ms. Dezy
Gaur & Mr. Ravinder Adlakha,
Advs.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS
...Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Ms.
Soumya Kumar & Mr. Armaan
Grover, Advs. for R-4 (f).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioners are the plaintiffs of the civil suit (suit no.
171/2002) which was instituted in 1999 against first to fourth
respondents for the reliefs of injunction - mandatory and prohibitory,
the cause of action claimed being that the said parties (defendants) had
carried out certain unauthorized construction in property no. 5404,
New Market, Ghorewali Sarai, Sadar Bazar, Delhi in which the
plaintiffs of the case claim to have an interest. The mandatory
injunction sought was directed against the Municipal Corporation of
Delhi (MCD) which is impleaded as first respondent in these
proceedings, the prayer being for removal of the unauthorized
construction. It appears that on the basis of pleadings that came to be
filed and MCD having admitted the construction of 32 illegal shops,
the trial Judge, by order dated 05.03.2003, granted part decree by
issuing mandantory injunction, as prayed. The said order was
challenged by one Dalip Singh, who was not a party to the suit, by
appeal (RCA 93/2009). The said appeal was dismissed by first
appellate court by judgment dated 26.11.2009. Pointedly, the said
Dalip Singh is stated to have died during the hearing on the said first
appeal and was substituted by his legal representatives they including
Manmohan Singh (respondent No. 4 - f) in the present petition.
2. After the dismissal of the appeal against the part decree, the said
Manmohan Singh filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, inter alia, claiming that he had been a
tenant for more than 50 years in the property in respect of which the
suit had been filed, reliance being placed on various documents
specifically rent receipts issued to him pertaining to one of the
portions of the suit property. The said application was allowed by the
Civil Judge by order dated 04.09.2013 which is impugned by the
present petition.
3. The second respondent has died. His legal representatives are
substituted in his place on application (CM No. 19665/2017), the
delay in moving the same being condoned thereby also allowing
separate application (CM No. 19666/2017) moved for such relief. The
main petition had been dismissed in default. In view of explanation
offered by application (CM No. 2704/2016), the same is restored and
taken up for final hearing and disposal.
4. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and having gone
through the record, this Court finds no good reason why Manmohan
Singh should be allowed to join the fray as a defendant, in the afore-
mentioned facts and circumstances. The plaintiff of the case does not
claim any relief against him or his predecessor-in-interest, he being
not a party to the suit. Any decree passed in such suit will obviously
not bind him. If under the cover of any such directions that are issued
in the suit of the plaintiff as may affect adversely the right of the said
applicant, he would have the liberty to pursue remedies available to
him in law. Even otherwise, if a cloud is brought on his interest in the
property of which he claims to be the tenant and in possession, he has
the liberty to institute his own independent proceedings. He cannot
impose himself on the plaintiff so as to complicate or compound the
issues raised by the parties thereto.
5. The petition is, thus, allowed. The impugned order is set aside.
The application under Order I Rule 10 CPC of the respondent no. 4 -f
is dismissed though reserving his right to pursue his rights, if any, in
his own independent proceedings.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
April 26, 2018
nk
