Dr. Tilak Raj Jaggi vs Smt. Priya Rani and Others

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.—This application under Order 39 Rule 2-A read with Section 151 of CPC has been preferred by defendant No. 6 i.e. Mr. Sudesh Kumar Jaggi alleging therein violation of the order dated 27th March 1996 passed by this Court on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

plaintiff Mr. Tilak Raj Jaggi filed a suit for partition, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction against 8 defendants. Along with the suit, an application was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. In the application, he made a prayer that an ex parte interim order be passed restraining defendants or any one of them from illegally or forcibly dispossessing plaintiff from the premises bearing number 1113, Main Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi and from premises bearing number 751-53, Gali Dorewali, Paharganj, New Delhi. The other prayer was to restrain defendants from selling, mortgaging or otherwise encumbering the properties which were the subject matter of the suit. At the time of issuing notice of the application, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the properties. This order of status quo was given in view of the prayer made by the plaintiff that he be not forcibly dispossessed and the properties mentioned above be not encumbered. Defendants No. 1 to 6 filed a joint written statement to the plaint and defendants No. 7 and 8, who were sisters of plaintiff remained ex parte and hence were proceeded ex parte. Later on, some disputes arose between defendants No. 1 to 6 inter se. In the present application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, it is alleged by defendant No. 6 that defendant No. 1 in violation of the order of maintaining status quo put her locks on the premises bearing number 791-94, Gali Dorewali, Paharganj, New Delhi and property bearing number C-37/1, Lawrence Road, Delhi. These properties were under lock and keys of defendant No. 6 and defendant No. 1 by putting her locks violated the order of maintaining status quo.

I consider that the present application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC is not maintainable. The status quo order was only in concern to the application moved by the plaintiff and it was not a blanket status quo order regarding disputes of defendants inter se. A perusal of record would show that defendant No. 1 and 6 were earlier partners in a partnership firm. Defendant No. 1 sought certain accounts from defendant No. 6 and also sought dissolution of the partnership firm namely �Jaggi Ayurvedic Pharmacy� and in view of the disputes between the partners of Jaggi Ayurvedic Pharmacy she being a partner put her locks on the premises of the partnership firm over the locks of other partner alleging that the other partners had put lock on a room inside the premises where the account books and other records of partnership firm were lying and she was not allowed to inspect the account books and the record. Another suit has already been filed by her regarding dissolution of the partnership firm. I, therefore, consider that disputes inter se partners, in respect of the partnership properties cannot be a reason to invoke status quo order issued by this Court concerning the premises under use of plaintiff. The present application is, therefore, dismissed.

IA 3018 of 1996 & IA 1060 of 2001

This application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC has been preferred by plaintiff wherein he sought restrain order against defendants that during pendency of instant suit, the plaintiff who was residing in property bearing number 751-53, Gali Dorewali, Paharganj, New Delhi be not dispossessed by other defendants. It is stated that defendant No. 6 with his family members was also residing along with the plaintiff in the same premises and defendant No. 6 attempted to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff. The other prayer was that plaintiff was in possession, use and enjoyment of tenanted premises bearing number 1113, Main Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi and was running his medical practice there and he should not be forcibly dispossessed from this tenanted premises. It is also prayed that defendants should be restrained from alienating, transferring or encumbering the properties:

(i) House No. 751-53, Gali Dore Wali, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi.

(ii) House No. F-14/17, Krishan Nagar, Delhi

(iii) House No. 791-94, Gali Dore Wali, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi

(vi) Property No. C-37/1, Lawrence Road, Delhi

(v) Industrial Plot No. B-1/A-23/E in Mohan Cooperative, Industrial Estate, Delhi

(vi) Rented shop No. 1113, Main Bazar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi

It is stated by defendants No. 1 to 6 in their earlier response when they jointly filed WS that the properties mentioned by plaintiff above were not self-acquired properties of Mr. Gyan Chand Jaggi. It is stated that the suit itself was not maintainable and that there had never been a joint family or joint family business. It is submitted that Mr. Gyan Chand Jaggi had executed a Will and whatever properties he had, he bequeathed according to his Will to different persons and this fact was in the knowledge of plaintiff. The suit was not maintainable in respect of property No. C-37/1, Lawrence Road, Delhi since this property belonged to the firm �Jaggi Ayurvedic Pharmacy�. The plot was allotted to Jaggi Ayurvedic Pharmacy and the construction was also done over it by the firm Jaggi Ayurvedic Pharmacy, after death of late Shri Gyan Chand Jaggi. The suit was also not maintainable in respect of shop bearing number 1113, Main Bazar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi since this shop was under tenancy of Shri Gyan Chand Jaggi and after death the landlord transferred the tenancy in favour of Rukmani Devi, Sudesh Kumar Jaggi, Mr. Darshan Lal Jaggi, Om Prakash Jaggi and Mr. Tilak Raj Jaggi. The plaintiff was not the exclusive tenant. It is stated that the property was deliberately included by plaintiff to counterblast the Suit 725 of 1994 titled as Smt. Priya Rani Jaggi and Ors. v. Mr. Tilak Raj Jaggi.

It has not been disputed in response by defendants that plaintiff was in possession of Shop bearing number 1113, Main Bazar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi and was running its clinic from there. It has also not been denied that plaintiff was living in property bearing number 751-53, Gali Dore Wali, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. Since the parties are litigating inter se from long time and it has yet to be adjudicated as to who will be entitled to which property, I consider that it would be appropriate that the plaintiff should not be dispossessed forcibly from the shop bearing number 1113, Main Bazar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi wherein he is running his clinic and from using the property bearing number 751-53, Gali Dore Wali, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi where he is residing. It would also be appropriate that till the rights of the parties are determined in different properties, the parties should not sell off, alienate or create any third party interest, mortgage any of the properties in question. This suit as well as other suits inter se parties are pending for the last about 13 to 15 years and the suits are not proceedings because of the attitude of the parties. It would be appropriate that the parties should complete their evidence instead of making one or the other application.

IA 1060 of 2001 is accordingly dismissed and IA 3018 of 1996 is hereby allowed in above terms.

IA 620 of 2006

This application u/s 151 read with Order 26 Rule IX and XI of CPC has been preferred by defendants No. 1 to 4 for directing Mr. S.B. Vohra, Local Commissioner to carry out the inspection as per order dated November 22, 2004 of (a) two inter connected room on first floor of the house No. 751-53, Gali Dore Wali, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi (b) 791-94, Gali Dore Wali, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi (c) C-37/1, Lawrence Road, Delhi. It is also prayed that the Local Commissioner be directed to relock the premises after carrying out inspection and the Court should issue directions regarding safe custody of books of account, computers, books, articles, merchandise etc.

It is submitted that defendant No. 1 was constrained to put her lock at doors of the partnership properties being a partner of the partnership firm and in possession of these properties as a matter of her right since her rights were being invaded by other partners. It is submitted that this Court had appointed the Local Commissioner to inspect the properties after giving due notice to the counsel for all the parties to ascertain nature and user of the properties and to prepare an inventory of goods, articles, merchandise. Defendants No. 5 and 6 who were aggrieved by this order filed a review petition. This Court dismissed the review application on 25th October 2005. However, the Local Commissioner sent a letter to the counsel for defendant No. 1 to 4 informing him that he will visit the property on 14th October 2005 at 2 pm and other two properties at Pahar Ganj on 17th October 2005 at 2 pm. The notice itself was received by the counsel for defendant No. 1 to 5 after 14th October 2005 at his office and therefore no one could be present on behalf of defendant No. 2 to 4 at the time of inspection. Defendant No. 1 was present when the Local Commissioner reached there and before opening the locks she asked the Local Commissioner whether he would relock the premises, this was denied by the Local Commissioner and due to this reason defendant No. 1 did not open the locks as the premises could not be left open after inspection. She submits that the property in question was the subject matter of a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts pending in this Court filed by defendant No. 1 and the suit premises if he not been re-locked there was likelihood that other defendants would have tampered with the records.

In my view, this application is a frivolous application. The report of Local Commissioner categorically shows that the defendants refused to open the locks. The Local Commissioner could not in any manner be concerned with relocking the premises. The Local Commissioner had only to inspect the premises and prepare an inventory. Whosoever would have opened the premises, would have also been at liberty to relock the same. The plea that counsel for defendant No. 1 received notice subsequent to inspection on 14th October 2005 is also belied from the report of the Local Commissioner. Even otherwise, the Local Commissioner had carried the Court order with him and shown the same to defendants and their counsel and other well wishers who had gathered at the site.

The attitude of defendants has been recorded by the Local Commissioner in his report. In view of the report of the Local Commissioner, I consider it does not lie in the mouth of defendants to ask for re-inspection or to plead that they were very cooperative.

I find no force in this application. The application is hereby dismissed.