Amita Pahuja vs Ved Prakash Pahuja and Others

Manmohan Singh, J.—The above-mentioned application has been filed by defendants No. 1 & 2, under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A read with Section 151 CPC, for initiating contempt proceedings against the plaintiff for violation of the status-quo order dated 09.07.2007.

The plaintiff filed the present suit for permanent injunction in respect of the property bearing No. L-10, Sriniwaspuri, J.J. Colony, New Delhi against the three defendants, namely, Ved Prakash Pahuja, Swaranlata Pahuja, defendants No. 1 & 2 (the present applicants) who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the plaintiff and Alok Pahuja, defendant No. 3 who is the husband of the plaintiff. The following prayer was made in the suit:-

A decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, employees and representatives from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property bearing No. L-10, 2nd Floor, Sriniwaspuri, J.J. Colony, New Delhi, and/or interfering in any manner whatsoever in her peaceful possession of the said property.

During the pendency of the suit, the defendants No. 1 & 2 have filed the present application. It is stated therein that despite of status-quo order dated 09.07.2007, the plaintiff in violation of the said order is trying to take forcible possession of the third floor which was not having at the time of institution of the suit. The contention of defendants No. 1 & 2 is that the plaintiff was only in possession of the second floor when the suit was filed, as admitted by the plaintiff in paragraph-10 of the plaint. Even the Local Commissioner was appointed who had also given his report that the plaintiff was residing on the second floor of the suit property when the interim order was passed.

Mr. Aneja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants has pointed out various contradictory statements made by the plaintiff in the pleadings. On the other hand, Dr. Sarbjit Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff has referred paragraph-8 of the written statement wherein defendant No. 3 has admitted that as far as the third floor of the suit property is concerned, the same was already in the occupation of the tenant and the plaintiff was receiving rent by pressurizing defendants No. 1 & 2. Dr. Sharma has also stated that the defendants have also filed an independent suit in Saket Court for possession of the suit property regarding the second and third floor thereof.

In view of the contentions raised by both the parties in support of their submissions in the present application coupled with the fact that the suit has already been withdrawn by the plaintiff, the prayer sought by the defendants No. 1 & 2 cannot be granted, rather the present application is disposed of with the direction that the suit filed by the defendants will continue without the merit or demerit of the contentions raised by the parties in the present application and the same may be decided independently, as per the evidence placed by the parties.

No further orders are required on this application. The same is accordingly disposed of.