Decided on January 02,2012

A.D.J./1ST FAST TRACK Respondents


- (1.) Heard Shri Sharad Sharma, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Anirudha Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Arvind Vashistha, the learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The land, in question, was acquired in the year 1962 in favour of B.H.E.L. Subsequently, it was transferred to Avas Vikas Parishad in the year 1993. The petitioner alleges that the Avas Vikas Parishad subsequently allotted a plot in favour of the petitioner. One suit No. 35 of 1990 was filed by Avas Vikas Parishad against Yashpal praying for an injunction and for possession was decreed on 11 th May, 1994 and, in the execution proceedings, possession of the land was given to Avas Vikash Parishad in the year 1997 from Yashpal. Yashpal is the father of present respondent No.5 Vikas. One Hemraj filed a suit against the defendants being suit No. 254 of 1998 for permanent injunction alleging that they are the bhumidhars of the plot in question. This suit was subsequently pursued by Yashpal to whom a power of attorney was executed in his favour. In this suit, an injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs on 29 th September, 1998 but, in a miscellaneous case filed by the petitioners, the injunction was stayed by an order dated 28 th October, 1998. The plaintiff Hemraj as well as Vikas filed two writ petitions which were disposed of by separate orders dated 16/12/1998 restraining the parties from making any construction during the pendency of the suit.
(3.) At this stage, it may be stated here that during this temporary injunction proceedings, the power of attorney holder Yashpal executed a sale deed dated 17/10/1998 of the property in question in favour of his son Vikas and, based on this sale deed, a writ petition against the injunction order was filed by Vikas as well as an application for impleadment. On 21 st December, 1998, the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution and an application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. was filed for the recall of the order which was numbered as miscellaneous case No. 133 of 1998 by the power of attorney holder. During the pendency of this miscellaneous application, the original plaintiff Hemraj filed an application praying that he does not wish to pursue the suit. Vikas who is the subsequent transferee also moved an application for impleadment in miscellaneous case No. 133 of 1998. This application of Vikas for impleadment was dismissed as not pressed. Further, the application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. was also not pressed and was dismissed on 17 th February, 2000.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.