- (1.) The present lis, having attained the age of around 19 years by this time, is one harrowing tale of law's delays causing frustration in the mind of litigant, who has been deprived of his property in pursuance of ex parte injunction order obtained by the plaintiff petitioner herein. The plaintiff having obtained the possession of the disputed property in pursuance of ex parte injunction order obtained by him, has very conveniently filed an application for withdrawl of the suit, which has been allowed. But when the defendant, who is respondent herein, dispossessed from the property in dispute has filed an application for amendment of his written statement and setting out the counter-claim for return of possession of the property, the plaintiff-petitioner has left no stone unturned to protect his possession.
(2.) The original suit No. 681 of 1991 was filed by the present petitioner herein referred to as the plaintiff, on the plea that he has purchased the property in dispute on 7th July, 1991 and defendant No. 1 Daulat Chand was its tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. The tenant of the property in dispute be restrained from delivering the possession of the property, detailed at the foot of the plaint, to any other person except the plaintiff. In the said suit, he obtained an ex parte injunction order dated 30th July, 1991. On the application dated 1st August, 1991 in the garb of ex parte injunction order, with the help of police, the plaintiff obtained possession vide memo of delivery of possession dated 6th August, 1991. The defendant No. 1 has expired and his name was subsequently deleted as ordered by the trial court from array of parties.
(3.) The suit is being contested by defendant No. 2, namely, Jalal Uddin alone, on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to get the possession as he had no title. Daulat Chand defendant No. 1 was his tenant who delivered him the possession before filing of the said suit. Various other pleas which are not required to be noticed for the time being, were raised. It has been stated in para-22 of the written statement that on 6th August, 1991, the plaintiff came on the spot with the police and forcibly dispossessed him from portion of the first floor of the property in suit and the plaintiff under law is bound to restore the possession of the same to him. The plaintiff has altered the position of the possession of the property in suit during pendency of the suit and plaintiff is neither the owner nor is entitled to any relief claimed in the suit, vide para-24 of thereof.;