Delhi High Court
Sumeet Singal vs Surender Kumar Singhal & Ors on 6 February, 2020
$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 06.02.2020
+ FAO 359/2018
SUMEET SINGAL ..... Appellant
versus
SURENDER KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Manasi Bhushan, Advocate for Anurag Kumar
Agarwal, Advocate
For the Respondent: Dr. Amit George, Mr. Rishabh Dheer, Mr. Amol
Acharya, Mr. Rayadurgam Bharat and Mr. Piyo
Harolo, Advocates
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Appellant impugns order dated 07.05.2018 whereby ad-interim
stay granted to the appellant by order dated 22.08.2017 was vacated
on the ground that he had not filed a no objection certificate of the co-
owner of the subject property.
2. Appellant had filed the Suit for Possession, declaration and
permanent injunction, inter-alia, seeking possession against the
respondents. As per the appellant, appellant was the co-owner of the
subject property along with the son of the respondent no. 1.
3. By order dated 22.08.2017, defendant no. 4 in the suit i.e.
Mohd. Danish was restrained from creating any third-party interest in
the suit property. Subsequently, appellant was directed to obtain a no
objection certificate from the co-owner i.e. son of respondent no. 1
and since appellant failed to obtain the no objection certificate, ad-
interim injunction was vacated by the impugned order dated
07.05.2018.
4. It is informed that subsequently, on an application filed under
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, son of respondent no. 1 has been impleaded as
a party to the suit. It is also informed that the application under Order
39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff is still pending.
5. By order dated 10.09.2018, this Court had stayed the operation
of the impugned order dated 07.05.2018. Consequently, the ad-interim
injunction granted by order dated 22.08.2017 stood restored.
6. In view of the fact that son of respondent no. 1 has already been
impleaded in the suit by order dated 25.09.2018 and also in view of
the fact that by virtue of order dated 10.09.2018, interim order dated
22.08.2017 stood restored and is continuing till date and further since
the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is still pending, I
deem it expedient to dispose of the appeal with a direction that the
interim order granted by this Court by order dated 10.09.2018
continuing the ad-interim injunction dated 22.08.2017 shall continue
to operate till the trial court takes up the application under Order 39
Rules 1 and 2 CPC in the Suit and disposes of the same.
7. The suit is stated to be listed before the trial court on
12.03.2020. Parties/their authorized representatives shall appear
before the trial court on the said date and assist the court in disposing
of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
8. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
9. It is clarified that the trial court shall consider and dispose of
the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC purely on its merit,
without being influenced by anything stated in this order.
CM APPL. 45599/2018 (under Section 340 Cr. P.C)
On perusal of the entire record, I do not deem it expedient, in
the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made on the
allegations of the applicant. I am also not inclined to exercise powers
under Section 340 Cr. P.C, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The application is accordingly dismissed.
Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
FEBRUARY 06, 2020
'rs'
