Narinder Pal Kaur Chawla v. Setia Buildwell Pvt Ltd & Anr

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

J.R.MIDHA, J.

NOVEMBER 11, 2008 mm

i.1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CMI 5/2008 % Date of order: 11.11.2008 NARINDER PAL KAUR CHAWLA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. M.C.Dhingra, Adv. with Petitioner in person versus SETIA BUILDWELL PVT LTD & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ehtesham Hashmi, Adv. for Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Adv. for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R.MIDHA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. On 4.11.2008 Trial Court Record was requisitioned through a special messenger. 3. The Trial Court Record is available and the same has been perused by us. 4. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner challenges the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.7.2007 limited to the relief of injunction granted against the petitioner restraining her from blocking the passage leading to the first floor of property bearing No.A-447, Defence Colony, New Delhi and the terrace of the second floor above. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the petitioner is not in possession of the said portion of the property in question in respect whereof injunction has been issued against her, but states that after the plaintiff obtained an interim injunction in the suit on 14.11.2007, under the garb of the interim order, the plaintiff dispossessed the petitioner from the portions of the property in question in respect whereof injunction has been granted against her. 6. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was in possession of the entire first floor as also the terrace of the second floor of property No.A-447, Defence Colony, New Delhi when the suit was filed by respondent No.1. 7. Relevant facts are that property No.A-447, Defence Colony, New Delhi was a plot of land owned by the L & DO. Perpetual lease hold rights were granted by L & DO in favour of one Prem Chander Chawla who sold the same to Gurbachan Singh Chawla vide sale deed dated 7.12.1958. Pursuant to the sale deed, mutation was effected in the record of L & DO recording that perpetual lease hold rights were transferred in favour of Gurbachan Singh Chawla. Gurbachan Singh Chawla is none else other than the late father-in-law of the petitioner. 8. The petitioner is the second wife of the son of Gurbachan Singh Chawla and his wife Joginder Kaur. 9. The petitioner and the son of Joginder Kaur and Late Gurbachan Singh Chawla are involved in a matrimonial litigation which appears to be extremely emotive and acrimonious. 10. On the death of Gurbachan Singh Chawla, his legal heirs i.e. his wife, his son and two daughters joined in an action before the L & DO which resulted in L & DO accepting Joginder Kaur to be the surviving legal heir of the deceased under a will dated 28.4.1973 stated to have been executed by Gurbachan Singh Chawla. 11. Vide sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 dated 16.5.2007, Joginder Kaur sold the property in question to respondent No.1 i.e. the plaintiff of the suit, recording therein that a two and a half storey building was constructed on the plot and that physical possession of the garage on the ground floor, the first floor and the terrace on the second floor was handed over to the purchaser i.e. the plaintiff. 12. Suit was filed by the purchaser as plaintiff, who, after narrating the aforesaid facts in the plaint, pleaded that the petitioner was occupying the second floor of the property in question and she attempted to obstruct the egress and ingress of its tenant by locking the common passage where-from entry was effected into the first floor of the property as also the terrace of the second floor. 13. A decree of injunction was prayed for to restrain the petitioner from putting a lock on the common passage leading to the first floor and the terrace of the second floor. 14. The petitioner filed a