Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Anil Gupta and Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J MAY 24, 2016 "gsr"..

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 24th May, 2016 + CONT.CAS(C) 196/2013 RAVINDER NATH CHOPRA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ramkishan Saini, Adv. Versus ANIL GUPTA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. A.S. Chadha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Naveen Sharma & Mr. Sahil Mongia, Advs. for R-1&2. Mr. S. Francis, Adv. for M/s SGGPPL. AND + CONT.CAS(C) 585/2014 ANIL GUPTA & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Ramkishan Saini, Adv. Versus RAVINDER NATH CHOPRA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. A.S. Chadha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Naveen Sharma & Mr. Sahil Mongia, Advs. for R-1&2. Mr. S. Francis, Adv. for M/s SGGPPL. AND + RFA 311/2012 RAVINDER NATH CHOPRA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ramkishan Saini, Adv. Versus ANIL GUPTA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. A.S. Chadha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Naveen Sharma & Mr. Sahil Mongia, Advs. for R-1&2. Mr. S. Francis, Adv. for M/s SGGPPL. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 impugns the consent judgment and decree dated 28th May, 2012 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ) (Central)-04, Delhi in CS No.29/12 filed by the respondents no.1 and 2 therein viz. Anil Gupta and Manoj Gupta against the respondent no.3 therein viz. Kamal Kumar Lamba for the reliefs of recovery of vacant, peaceful, physical possession of two rooms, tin-shed, kitchen, toilet and bathroom of properties No.3871 to 3874, Gali No.25, Reghar Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed to the plaint and for recovery of mesne profits / damages for use and occupation and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent no.3 Kamal Kumar Lamba from handing over possession of the said portion of the property to anyone else. 2. The appellant Ravinder Nath Chopra was not a party to the suit from which the appeal arises; however claiming to be adversely affected by the judgment and decree aforesaid, has preferred the appeal and which came up before this Court first on 27th July, 2012 when notice thereof was issued and on the application of the appellant Ravinder Nath Chopra for interim relief, the following order was passed: "Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 28th September, 2012. Till the next date of hearing, respondents are directed to maintain status quo with respect to the property which is the subject matter of the compromise decree impugned in the appeal and not to create any third party interest in respect of the same." 3. Though the respondents no.1&2 Anil Gupta and Manoj Gupta in response to the notice issued appeared but none appeared for the respondent no.3 Kamal Kumar Lamba despite service. 4. Contempt case No.196/2013 has been filed by the appellant Ravinder Nath Chopra contending that the respondents no.1&2 Anil Gupta and Manoj Gupta in violation of the order dated 27th July, 2012 aforesaid have on 24th September, 2012 executed and registered a sale deed of the portion aforesaid of the property in favour of M/s Shree Ganpati Gold Projects Pvt. Ltd. Notice of the said contempt case was also issued. 5. Contempt case No.585/2014 has been filed by Anil Gupta and Manoj Gupta supra contending that the appellant Ravinder Nath Chopra, after obtaining the interim order dated 27th July, 2012 aforesaid, has in violation and contempt thereof ousted the aforesaid M/s Shree Ganpati Gold Projects Pvt. Ltd. (which was in possession of the property in pursuance to the sale deed executed by Anil Gupta & Manoj Gupta in its favour) from the property. Notice of the said contempt case also was issued. 6. Vide order dated 21st August, 2014 in all the aforesaid proceedings, observing that both the parties i.e. the appellant Ravinder Nath Chopra as well as the respondents no.1&2 Anil Gupta and Manoj Gupta are guilty of misleading the Court and violating the orders of the Court and that the property should be preserved, directed the keys of the property to be deposited with the Registrar (Original) of t