Smt. Sashi Verma vs Shri Tek Singh and anothers

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

1.During the pendency of Civil Suit No. 27-S/1, of 14/13, an application cast, under the provisions of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, was,

preferred by the plaintiff/applicant/petitioner herein, before the learned trial Court, wherein, she sought relief of ad interim mandatory injunction being

pronounced vis-a-vis her, and, qua the suit premises. Also obviously she concerted to seek the restoration of possession of the suit premises, from, the

defendant. The learned trial Court, dismissed the apposite application. In an appeal carried therefrom, by the plaintiff/petitioner herein, before, the

learned Additional District Judge-1, Shimla, the latter did likewise. Now, the plaintiff/petitioner herein being aggrieved therefrom, hence, has instituted

the instant petition before this Court.

Normally, Courts of law, would, be reluctant in granting any relief of ad interim mandatory injunction vis-a-vis the suit premises concerned, also,

would obviously refrain, from, till an adjudication is pronounced on merits vis-a-vis the apposite lis, mete directions, upon the defendant(s), qua handing

over, of, possession of the suit premises vis-a- vis the plaintiff/petitioner herein. However, certain exceptions tot he aforesaid intradictory bar, against,

the apposite relief of ad interim mandatory injunction, being pronounced qua the suit premises, till an adjudication is meted upon the civil suit, are also

encapsulated, in a judgment pronounced by this Court in a caste titled as Anil Sharma & another vs. Mehboob Hussan, reported in 2012 (suppl.) Him.

L. R., 2275, exceptions whereof are comprised in trite evidence, making prima facie displays (i) of the applicant/plaintiff/petitioner being in evident

possession of the suit premises, prior to his/her unlawful eviction therefrom; (b) affording of relief being necessary, for obviating the promoting of

illegal dispossession, of the applicant/plaintiff/petitioner, from the suit premises; (c) dehors no adjudication on merits being pronounced, upon the

apposite therewith similar lis borne in the civil suit, (i) whereupon, the Courts, are, enjoined to hence ensure, the status quo qua ante, prior to the date

of institution, of the suit. This Court would proceed, to apply, the expostulations borne, in the afore referred pronouncement, recorded by this Court in

Anil Sharma's case (supra), (ii) only, upon prima facie material existing on record, and, its earmarking a graphic display qua 6 months prior to the

plaintiff/applicant/petitioner, herein being purportedly illegally dispossessed, from, the suit premises by defendant No.1, rather hers being in possession

thereof. The plaintiff/petitioner herein had depended, upon a partnership deed executed inter se her and defendant No.2, for hers legitimizing her claim

qua hers holding possession, of, the suit premises. The learned Appellate Court, discounted vigour thereof, on, the trite grounds, of, with rent

agreement being evidently executed vis-a-vis the suit premises inter se defendant No.1, and, with defendant No.2, thereupon, the plaintiff/applicant,

prima facie failing to adduce cogent proof qua hers holding possession of the suit premises, importantly six months prior to hers being purportedly

illegally dispossessed, from, the suit premises, besides concluded of the partnership deed executed inter se defendant No.1, and, the

plaintiff/applicant/petitioner herein, especially vis-a-vis the suit premises being a sequel, of contrivance inter se defendant No.2, and, the

plaintiff/petitioner herein. The factum, of, tenancy qua the suit premises inhering in defendant No.1, though, is borne by a copy, of eviction petition

existing on record, wherein, defendant No.2 claims eviction of defendant No.1, and, of the plaintiff/petitioner herein, from, the suit premises, on anvil or

ground, of defendant No.1 subletting the same vis-a-vis the plaintiff/petitioner herein, (a) yet any imputation of any credence thereto, is totally

insignificant, for determining the tenacity of the espousals, made, by the plaintiff/applicant, in her apposite application, (b) importantly when the

mandate expostulated by this Court in Anil Sharma's case (supra), for hence the plaintiff/petitioner herein being rendered empowered, to seek the

relief ventilated in her apposite application, rather enjoins satiation of the trite factum, of, the plaintiff/petitioner herein being in evident possession of

the suit premises, prior to hers being unlawfully dispossessed therefrom. Even though, the aforesaid revelations, borne, in the rent petition, may hence,

with evidently a partnership deed being executed inter se the plaintiff and defendant No.2, beget concomitant adversarial effects upon its success,

nonetheless, prima facie at this stage, as aforestated, and, for the reasons to be ascribed hereinafter, the learned Appellate Court, has visibly gone

astray, in omitting to apply the expostulation(s), enshrined by this Court in Anil Sharma's case (supra). His deviations, from, the mandate of the verdict

pronounced by this Court, in Anil Sharma's case (supra), is comprised in his not alluding, to evidence germane, to hence satiation being begotten vis-a-

vis the trite principles borne therein, of the plaintiff holding possession of the suit premises, six months, prior to hers being illegally dispossessed

therefrom. The relevant evidence germane thereto, and, which appears to stand visibly untenably discarded, by the learned Appellate Court, is

comprised, in defendant No.1 lodging a complaint, on 3.2.2013, with, the Incharge of Police Post, Solan, complaint whereof carries therein,

articulations of his hence acquiescing, of, his not holding possession of the suit premises. The effects of the aforesaid acquiescences, borne in the

report made on 3.2.2013, by defendant No.1, with, the In-charge of Police Post, Solan, is of the complaint lodged, by the plaintiff/applicant with Police

Post, Solan, on 4.3.2013, with recitals occurring therein, of hers being illegally dispossessed, from, the suit premises by defendant No.1, in the

intervening night of 3/4.04.2013, rather hence, prima facie, obviously holding tenacity. On a combined conjunctive reading, of, the aforesaid material, it

stands prima facie, unfolded, qua hence of the plaintiff/applicant/petitioner herein being, in possession, of the suit premises, prior to the institution of the

suit, and, hers being illegally dispossessed therefrom, by defendant No.1 In aftermath, with the apposite expostulations, occurring, in Anil Sharma's

case (supra), rendered by this Court, hence, begetting satiation, thereupon, it is imperative to make, a firm conclusion, of the learned Appellate Court,

misdirecting itself, in refusing apposite relief to the plaintiff/petitioner herein, also its discarding material germane to resting, the controversy, hence,

emerging inter se the parties at contest, (i) whereupon, it is to be concluded of the verdicts concurrently pronounced by both the learned Courts below,

upon the plaintiff's/petitioner's application, cast under the provisions of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, warranting reversal, (ii) given, theirs obviously

falling outside the principles expostulated, by this Court in Anil Kumar's case (supra), (iii) especially when for the reasons stated hereinabove, upon

satiation hereat of all the trite principles expostulated therein, they stood rather empowered to grant the relief, of, ad interim mandatory injunction.

For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. Consequently, the plaintiff's/petitioner's application,

cast under the provisions of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, is allowed, and, defendant No.1/respondent No.1 herein is directed to, within two weeks

from today, hand over the possession of the suit premises, to the plaintiff/petitioner herein. The parties are directed to appear, before, the learned trial

Court on 23rd April, 2018. However, it is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall have no bearings on the merits of the case. No

order as to costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of . Records be sent back forthwith.