Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat, on 11.09.2015, by which the suit filed by the six respondents herein under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking restoration of the suit property, has been allowed.

2. As per the case of the respondents-plaintiffs, the suit property was a shop in Sonepat, Haryana, that was first occupied as a tenant by their grand-father Goverdhan Dass, in the year 1962 at a monthly rent of Rs. 24.

As per the respondents, Jagdish Chander is stated to have contacted the petitioner (defendant in the suit) seeking the reason for the change, to which the petitioner is contended to have replied that all goods belonging to Jagdish Chander had been sent to Panipat.

Jagdish Chander is then stated to have made a complaint to the SHO of Police Station City, Sonepat, upon which FIR No. 410/08 came to be registered on 17.10.2008, alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under Sections 448 and 380 of the IPC.

2 of 19

5. It was next contended by the respondents in their suit that on 17.08.2011 work had been suspended by the District Bar Association, Sonepat, and on the same date, the suit instituted by Jagdish Chander (with them being his LRs therein), was rejected on an application having been filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. Hence, the suit in the present lis was instituted by them on 09.09.2011, which as per the respondents, was within limitation.

10. The present petitioner-defendant also examined two witnesses in his defence, including himself as DW-2, with one Suresh Kumar son of Shivji Lal, having testified as DW-1, both of them reiterating the contents of the written statement.

By way of documentary evidence, the petitioner tendered a copy of a judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat, in the criminal case 4 of 19 registered against the petitioner (pursuant to the FIR got registered by Jagdish Chander), the petitioner having been acquitted of the charge framed against him, such charge being one on the commission of an offence punishable under Section 411 of the IPC (though in the FIR he had been alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 448 and 382 of that Code). The said judgment (Ex. D-1 before the trial Court in the present lis), was delivered on 17.02.2014.