Delhi District Court
Sh. Ranjit Kumar Chawla vs Sh. R.P. Anand on 12 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer: Sh. Dinesh Kumar, DJS
Suit No. 524/2014
Unique ID no. 02406C0375602014
In the matter of :
1.Sh. Ranjit Kumar Chawla, S/o Late Sh. R.P. Chawla, R/o G108, Saket, New Delhi.
2. Smt. Neena Chawla, W/o Ranjit Kumar Chawla, R/o G108, Saket, New Delhi ........Plaintiffs.
vs
1. Sh. R.P. Anand, R/o C7/12, Safdarjang, Development Area, New Delhi110016
2. Mr. I.D. Nagpal, R/o L32, Kalkaji, New Delhi110019 .....Defendants. (Defendant no.2 is deleted vide Order dated 02.07.2015).
Date of institution of Suit : 25.05.2007 Date on which order was reserved : 27.07.2015 Date of pronouncement of the order : 12.08.2015 EX PARTE JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction. It is worth mentioning here that the suit was originally instituted as suit no.295/07 in the Court of CS No.524/2014 Ranjit Kumar Chawla & Anr. Vs. R.P. Anand Page 1 of 8 Sh. Raghubir Singh, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi, Tis Hazari Courts on 25.05.2007. The suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 22.04.2013 by Ld. Civil Judge15, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. However, on an appeal preferred by the plaintiffs herein, the suit was restored and the judgment as abovesaid was set aside. It is also worth mentioning that the plaintiffs had originally filed the suit against two defendants including the present defendant. However, vide order dated 02.07.2015, defendant no.2 had been deleted from array of parties. The plaintiffs have stated their case in the plaint as under:
1.1. The plaintiff no.1 is the husband of plaintiff no.2. Since 1991, the plaintiffs have been in possession of first floor comprising three rooms, one office, one bathroom, one latrine and one balcony, total approximately measuring 85 sq. yards of property bearing no.
1931A / 19, Govind Puri Extension, New Delhi (hereinafter called the suit property). They are running / managing their business from the suit property without any interruption. The suit property is shown in red colour in the site plan.
1.2. The plaintiffs are having a separate electricity connection at the suit premises. They also have a telephone connection. For the last more than 15 years, the plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit property in their own rights. The plaintiffs have invested a huge amount in the property.
CS No.524/2014 Ranjit Kumar Chawla & Anr. Vs. R.P. Anand Page 2 of 8 1.3. In the first week of May, 2007, the defendants no.1 and 2 came to the plaintiffs and threatened them to vacate the suit property and asked to make some other arrangement for carrying their business. Defendant no.2 claimed himself to be an advocate and threatened the plaintiffs that if the suit property was not vacated than they would have to face dire consequences. The plaintiffs asked defendants no.1 and 2 in what authority or capacity they had been threatening them to vacate the suit property. They further asked the defendants whether they had any documents / papers of ownership pertaining to the suit property. However, the defendants refused to show any documents to the plaintiffs. However, they asked the plaintiffs to vacate the suit property. They also threatened the plaintiffs. The defendants are also obstructing in the ingress and egress of the plaintiffs. They are also creating nuisance in the running of the business of the plaintiffs. The defendants have no rights, title or interest in the suit property. Hence, the present suit has been filed with the following prayer:
"(a) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants restraining the defendants their servants, assignee, representative, officials from interfering or obstructing the plaintiffs in ingress and outgress of the suit property;
(b) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the CS No.524/2014 Ranjit Kumar Chawla & Anr. Vs. R.P. Anand Page 3 of 8 plaintiffs and against the defendants restraining the defendants their servants, assignee, representative, official from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in any manner and cost of the suit;
(c) pass such other and further order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. Summons were issued to the defendants. The defendants were served. The defendant no.2 appeared through counsel. He filed WS. However, he stopped appearing thereafter. He was proceeded ex parte vide order dated on 19.05.2010. Defendant no.1 did not appear despite service. Therefore, he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 03.08.2010.
3. The matter was fixed for ex parte evidence. Ex parte evidence was led by the plaintiffs. In between the defendant no.2 moved application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC for setting aside ex parte order. However, in the meantime, the defendant no.2 expired. Vide order dated 13.02.2013 Ld. Predecessor passed the order that the suit was abated against defendant no.2.
4. The plaintiff led ex parte evidence. After hearing the plaintiff, Ld. Predecessor dismissed the suit vide order dated 22.04.2013.
5. The plaintiff preferred an appeal which was heard by Sh. CS No.524/2014 Ranjit Kumar Chawla & Anr. Vs. R.P. Anand Page 4 of 8 Munish Markan, Ld. SCJ, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi as RCA no.10/2013. Ld. Appellate Court vide order dated 08.12.2014 set aside the judgment passed by Ld. Predecessor as abovesaid and provided opportunity to the plaintiffs to lead additional evidence to prove their case including the particulars of the suit property and alleged threat of dispossession. Ld. Appellate Court had assigned the present case to this Court vide abovesaid order. The suit has been registered in this Court on 15.012.2014.
6. The plaintiffs have examined themselves as PW1 and PW2. They have tendered their evidence by way of affidavit. They have also led additional evidence by way of affidavit. PW1 has tendered his evidence way of affidavit and reiterated the facts stated in the plaint. He has relied upon the following documents:
a)General power of attorney issued by plaintiff no.2 in favour of plaintiff no.1 is Mark A;
b)site plan is Ex.PW1/2;
c) photographs are Ex.PW1/3 (colly);
d) license issued by authority is Ex.PW1/4;
e) the certificate of registration issued under Delhi Sales Tax Rules 1975 are Ex.PW1/5, Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7.
f)The license issued by Assistant Drug Controller is Ex.PW1/9;
CS No.524/2014 Ranjit Kumar Chawla & Anr. Vs. R.P. Anand Page 5 of 8
g)certificate of appreciation issued by Goa Antibiotics and pharmaceuticals Ltd. is Ex.PW1/10;
h)electricity bill of Delhi Vidyut Board is Ex.PW1/11 (colly);
i)electricity bill of BSES is Ex.PW1/12 (colly);
j) telephone bills are Ex.PW1/13 (colly);
k) importer exporter code issued by Govt. of India is Ex.PW1/14;
l) public notice published in newspaper is Ex.PW1/15;
m) letters issued by Madha Pradesh Laghu Udyog Nigam Ltd. is Ex.PW1/16 (colly);
n) complaint is Mark B;
o) letter issued by RRA Health Care Pvt. Ltd. is Ex.PW1/18;
p) the documents of the property tax receipt challans in the name of plaintiff no.2 dated 14.10.2013, receipts dated 14.10.2013 and the ownership details taken from the website from the MCD dated 14.10.2013 are Ex.PW1/20 (colly3 pages).
7. The plaintiff no.2 has examined herself as PW2. She has also reiterated the facts stated in the plaint. She has also relied upon the same documents.
8. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material available on record carefully.
CS No.524/2014 Ranjit Kumar Chawla & Anr. Vs. R.P. Anand Page 6 of 8
9. This Court has jurisdiction to decide the present suit. The allegation of the plaintiffs is that the defendant is trying to dispossess them from the suit property forcibly. It is also their allegation that defendant is obstructing their ingress / egress from the suit property. The plaintiffs have relied upon various documents to show that they are in possession of the suit property. The PW1 and PW2 in their additional affidavits of evidence Ex.PW1/A1 and Ex.PW2/A1 have stated that since 1991 they are in possession of the suit property, part of property bearing no.193119, First floor, Govindpuri Extension, New Delhi. They have stated that as per the norms the first floor of the property is normally addressed as 'B'. The entire property is also numbered as 1931 A/19, Govindpuri Extension, New Delhi. The electricity meters are still installed at the ground floor. After going through the material on record and the documents filed by the plaintiffs, and keeping in mind the unrebutted testimony of the PW1 and PW2, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs have shown, on the balance of probability, that they are in possession of the suit property. The defendant has not appeared despite service. Therefore, the allegations made by the plaintiffs against him have remained unrebutted. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs have proved, on the preponderance of probability, that the defendant is obstructing the ingress and egress of the plaintiffs from the suit property. It has been also been proved, on the CS No.524/2014 Ranjit Kumar Chawla & Anr. Vs. R.P. Anand Page 7 of 8 balance of probability, that the defendant is trying to interfere in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs of the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief claimed by them in the present suit.
10. In the light of discussion hereinabove, suit of the plaintiffs is decreed. The defendant is hereby restrained from obstructing the ingress and egress of the plaintiffs from the suit property. The defendant is further restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs of the suit property bearing no.1931A/19, Govindpuri Extension, New Delhi110019, without following due process of law. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to cost.
11. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Pronounced in the open Court (Dinesh Kumar) on this 12th day of August, 2015. Civil Judge, South East, Saket Court, New Delhi.
CS No.524/2014 Ranjit Kumar Chawla & Anr. Vs. R.P. Anand Page 8 of 8