Delhi District Court
Additional District Judge (Central) 12 vs Sh. Jitender Singh on 30 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MAN MOHAN SHARMA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (CENTRAL) 12,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Case no. 105/11 & C.S. 212/11(Counter Claim)
30.03.2012
Raj Roop & Ors
.... plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Jitender Singh
.....Defendant
ORDER:
1. By this order I propose of dispose of the application filed by applicant Sh. Ajit Singh under Section 151 CPC which has been considered as an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 as prayed.
2. Arguments heard as advanced by applicant himself (who is accompanied with the ld. proxy counsel) and Shri R. S. Verma, ld. counsel for the defendant.
3. It is submitted by the applicant that he (Sh. Ajit Singh) is one of the LR of deceased plaintiff Sh. Raj Roop and by this application the applicant has prayed for direction/permission to carry out finishing work in respect of house situated in Khasra no. 460 village Chhawla, C. S. 105/11 and 212/11(Counter claim) Page 1 of 5 New Delhi.
4. It is submitted by the applicant that on account of order dated 12.07.2011 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi he could not complete the finishing work in respect of his house as per the aforesaid particulars. Therefore, he is constrained to live in a rented accommodation and to pay huge amount of rent despite the fact that he is having his own residential property, as above. It is further stated that he wants to finish the work in the house by laying the floor, fixing the doors and windows and carrying out the plaster work so as to make the house habitable. Hence the application may kindly be allowed as prayed.
5. The application has been vehemently opposed by the respondent. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the order dated 12.07.2011 in FAO no. 302/2008 and has read the following portion: '...It is agreed by both the parties therefore that all the parties to the suit viz. the plaintiffs and the defendants as mentioned in the plaint and counter claim, will maintain status quo with C. S. 105/11 and 212/11(Counter claim) Page 2 of 5 respect to title, possession and construction of the suit property till the disposal of the suit...'
6. It is next submitted by ld. counsel that in the garb of the present application the applicant wants to come out of the above order.
7. The defendant has relied upon copy of a report dated 17.07.2011 made to police regarding violation of the aforesaid stay order and report of the police vide DD no. 20 B dated 18.07.2011 of PS Chhawla wherein it has been reported that on receipt of DD no. 9A S.I. Naresh Kumar reached the suit property at village Chhawla and apprised the applicant about the above order and also attempted to serve a copy of the order upon the applicant, Ajit Singh, which he refused and continued with the work of erection/laying of lanter (concrete roof) and under these circumstance he was constrained to affix a copy of the same on the suit property and further stated about reporting the matter to the Higher Authorities including intimation to MCD. Photographs have also been referred by the defendant on record to support his submissions.
8. Considering the entire circumstances, as narrated above there is no doubt that parties are under an obligation to maintain status quo C. S. 105/11 and 212/11(Counter claim) Page 3 of 5 with respect to title, possession and construction of the suit property till the disposal of the suit as directed by the Hon'le High Court of Delhi. An apprehension has been expressed by the defendant that the application is motivated in order to defeat the consented stay order referred to the above. On a relative aspect, the case as pleaded by the defendant is on a higher pedestal than that pleaded by the applicant, Sh. Ajit Singh. The documentary material as pointed on record clearly show that there was some unauthorized construction carried out by the applicant after 12.07.2011 i.e. after the stay order referred to above and that the applicant did not ceaseanddesist after the police tried to prevent him by showing him the order.
9. Under these facts and circumstances, the apprehension as expressed by the defendant appears to be valid. The conduct of the applicant does not appear to be above board. The record prima facie shows that the applicant has tried to overreach the orders passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and in view of his conduct it cannot be said that he has approached the court with clean hands. Approaching the court with clean hands is sinequanon for grant of discretionary or equitable relief which the applicant is seeking.
10. Under these facts and circumstances the application is C. S. 105/11 and 212/11(Counter claim) Page 4 of 5 dismissed.
11. Nevertheless, nothing stated herein shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Announced in the Open Court On this 30th day of March 2012 (MAN MOHAN SHARMA) ADJ (Central)12, Delhi C. S. 105/11 and 212/11(Counter claim) Page 5 of 5