Delhi District Court
The Application Of The vs Board Of Control For Cricket In India And ... on 19 October, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SHIRISH AGGARWAL, CIVIL JUDGE -1
CENTRAL DISTRICT, DELHI
Suit No. 282/06
Sneh Lata v. Savitri
ORDER
1. The application of the plaintiffs under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall be decided by this order.
2. By this application, the plaintiffs have prayed that defendants be directed to remove their lock from the suit property. Since by the present application, an interim relief is sought, it is ordered that the application shall be considered as one under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
3. The defendants have opposed the application. Reply to the same has been filed by defendants.
4. Arguments have been heard and the record has been perused.
5. Prayer no. D as made in the plaint is identical to the one as made in the present application. Therefore, in case the present application is allowed, it would amount to decreeing the suit, even though, in part. This is not permissible under law. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:
Sneh Lata v. Savitri Suit No.282/06 Page No:1/2 2 A.C. Muthiah Vs. Board of Control for Cricket in India and Anr. (2011) 6 SCC 617:
"48. As noticed earlier the learned Single Judge of the High Court before whom the suits were instituted as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have refused to grant equitable relief of injunction claimed by the Appellant. This Court is of the opinion that grant of interim relief as prayed for can amount to decreeing the suit without adjudicating the claims raised in the pleadings of the parties. Such a course is not permissible at all. This Court has deprecated the practice of grant of interim relief, which amounts to decreeing the suit in several reported decisions. The averments made in the plaints would show that the final reliefs claimed are almost the same as claimed by way of interim reliefs. Whether the Appellant is entitled to equitable relief of injunction or not, will have to be decided after several questions raised in the plaints are decided on the basis of evidence, which may be adduced by the parties. The questions of law sought to be raised by the Appellant are at the best mixed questions of law and facts...."
Rubinder Singh Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corpn. and Ors. 1995 Supp (2) SCC 93:
"On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified at this stage to give those directions as indicated in the judgment. It would practically amounts to decreeing the suit which is beyond the purview of granting interlocutory orders."
6. Moreover, it cannot even be said that the relief sought is urgent in nature and the plaintiff is suffering to such an extent that he shall suffer irreparable injury if the application is not allowed. Admittedly, the lock was put in the property on 01.12.2008. Till date, the plaintiff did not press on his application. The application was filed and forgotten about. It was only on the last date of hearing that the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that the Sneh Lata v. Savitri Suit No.282/06 Page No:2/2 3 application is yet to be decided.
7. I am of the considered opinion that since allowing the application would amount to decreeing the suit, the application is not maintainable. Therefore, the application of the plaintiffs under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908/under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure is dismissed.
(ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (SHIRISH AGGARWAL)
ON 19.10.2013) CIVIL JUDGE-1
CENTRAL DISTRICT
DELHI
Sneh Lata v. Savitri Suit No.282/06 Page No:3/2