Delhi High Court
Mukhtiyar Khan vs Devi Ram @ Bhagatji & Ors on 22 January, 2019
$~43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Order: 22.01.2019
+ F.A.O. No.23/2019 & C.M. No.2750/2019
MUKHTIYAR KHAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Abhimanyu Redhu & Ms. Syed
Maria Aijaz, Advocates.
Versus
DEVI RAM @ BHAGATJI & ORS ....Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
1. The impugned order dated 09.01.2019 issued by the court of
learned District & Sessions Judge, South-East District, Saket Courts,
New Delhi, in Civil Suit No.24/2019 by which he issued notice on the
application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC to the
respondents/defendants without granting ex-parte ad interim
injunction in favour of the appellant, is the subject-matter of challenge
in this appeal.
2. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the
property in question was initially purchased by him on 18.10.1995
from the recorded owner Smt. Saroopi Devi and photostat copies of
the General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, affidavit, Will and
receipt of Rs.11,80,000/- all dated 18.10.1995 are placed on record.
Further, he submits that after the death of Smt. Saroopi Devi, some
disputes arose between her legal heirs (LRs) and the appellant. He
submits that all the LRs of Smt. Saroopi Devi have executed a General
Power of Attorney in favour of one of the LRs, Sanjay Kumar on
06.11.2018 and after the settlement of disputes with the LRs of Smt.
Saroopi Devi, fresh sale documents were executed in favour of the
appellant on 24.12.2018. He submits that the appellant has been in
continuous occupation of the suit property since 18.10.1995, however,
the respondents/defendants are determined to dispossess him illegally.
3. Learned senior counsel contends that by the impugned order
dated 09.01.2019, the learned District & Sessions Judge has not dealt
with the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC and merely
ordered for issuance of notice for 20.02.2019. He further contends
that in case the respondents are not restrained from dispossessing the
appellant from the suit property, the appellant would suffer irreparable
loss and injury and suit will become infructuous.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the copies of sale
documents in favour of the appellant placed on record, the parties are
directed to maintain the status quo with regard to possession of the
suit property, till disposal of the application under Order XXXIX Rule
1 & 2 CPC by learned District & Sessions Judge in accordance with
law without being influenced by any observation made in this order.
Compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC be made within three days.
5. In view of the above, the appeal along with application, being
C.M. No.2750/2019, is disposed of.
6. Copy of the order be given dasti under signatures of the Court
Master.
(VINOD GOEL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 22, 2019
'AA'
