Delhi High Court - Orders
Rajesh Kapoor vs Shilpi Kapoor & Ors on 30 December, 2020
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 657/2020
RAJESH KAPOOR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
SHILPI KAPOOR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manjeet Singh Bhamra,
Advocate for R-1 to 3.
Mr. Nikhil Arora, Advocate for R-
4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 30.12.2020 The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.
CM APPL. 34562/2020 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.
CM(M) 657/2020 & CM APPL. 34561/2020 (seeking police assistance for implementation of order dated 14.12.2020)
1. Issue notice. Mr. Manjeet Singh Bhamra, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Nikhil Arora, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 4.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for all the parties, the petition CM(M) 657/2020 Page 1 of 4 is taken up for disposal today.
3. The challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is to an order dated 18.12.2020, passed by learned Civil Court (South East District), Saket Court, New Delhi, in Misc. SCJ. No. 62/2020, by which the learned Trial Court has issued notice in an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter, "CPC"] filed by the petitioner (original plaintiff), and adjourned the hearing of the same to 20.01.2021, without grant of any immediate interim relief to the petitioner.
4. The suit before the Trial Court has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents, being his daughter-in-law (respondent no. 1 herein), grand-daughters (respondent nos. 2 & 3 herein) and son (respondent no. 4 herein), for the following reliefs:
"a. Pass a Decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant No. 2 - 4 thereby restraining them from taking possession of residence of Plaintiff at First Floor of immovable property bearing no. E- 213, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-110024; b. Pass a Decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant No. 2 - 4 from interfering with lawful and peaceful possession Plaintiff of his residence at First Floor of immovable property bearing no. E-213, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-110024;
c. Costs of the suit and / or Any such further order or orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants."
5. In the said suit, the petitioner made an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC, upon which an order dated 14.12.2020 CM(M) 657/2020 Page 2 of 4 was passed by the learned Trial Court. By the said order, the learned Trial Court allowed the application and restrained defendant nos. 2 to 4 in the suit (respondent nos. 1 to 3 in the present petition) from entering or interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property at the first floor of E-213, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-110024. The said respondents were also directed to leave or vacate the first floor of the suit property.
6. Alleging a violation of the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC, in which the impugned order dated 18.12.2020 has been passed. The petitioner's contention is that the learned Trial Court ought to have protected the petitioner in the meantime and granted immediate relief in aid of the order of injunction dated 14.12.2020.
7. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 submits that the order of injunction dated 14.12.2020 has been challenged by the said respondents in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge (South East), Saket Court, New Delhi, in MCA DJ No. 10/2020, which is coming up for hearing before the Appellate Court on 05.01.2021.
8. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the view that it would be sufficient for the disposal of the present petition to advance the next date of hearing of the petitioner's application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC before the Trial Court from 20.01.2021 to 06.01.2021, when the orders passed by the Appellate Court on 05.01.2021 may also be placed before the Trial Court.
9. Learned counsel for all the parties are agreeable to this course of action and undertake that their clients will be represented before the Trial CM(M) 657/2020 Page 3 of 4 Court on 06.01.2021 for this purpose. It is made clear that the proceedings in the petitioner's application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC will not be adjourned on the ground of any of the parties not being represented on the said date.
10. Learned counsel for the parties also undertake that they will cooperate in the hearing before the Appellate Court on 05.01.2021.
11. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the controversy between the parties, which will be decided by the concerned Courts in accordance with law.
12. No further orders are required on this petition, The petition is disposed of alongwith all the pending applications in terms of this order.
PRATEEK JALAN (VACATION JUDGE) DECEMBER 30, 2020 „hkaur‟ CM(M) 657/2020 Page 4 of 4