Vinod Kumar Sood v. Bipin Gujral & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. OCTOBER 01, 2018 'pp/bs'..

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 1st October, 2018. + RSA 298/2015, CM No.14646/2015 (for stay), CM No.5250/2018 (u/O XLI Rule 27 of the CPC) and CM No.5251/2018 (for exemption) VINOD KUMAR SOOD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Pramod Ahuja, Adv. Versus BIPIN GUJRAL & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Samar Bansal, Mr. Devahuti Pathak, Mr. Manan Shishodia and Mr. Vinayak Mehrotra, Advs. Ms. Anju Gupta and Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Advs. for SDMC/R-5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 18th April, 2015 in RCA No.84/14 of the Court of Additional District Judge-02 (South- East)] of dismissal of First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree [dated 16th April, 2014 in Civil Suit No.590/14 (Case ID No.02406C0325332010) of the Court of Civil Judge-01 (South)] only partly allowing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff. 2. This appeal came up first before this Court on 11th August, 2015 when, without expressing any satisfaction that the Second Appeal entailed any substantial question of law and without framing any substantial question of law, notice thereof was ordered to be issued. The appeal thereafter has been adjourned from time to time but in none of the subsequent orders also any substantial question of law has been framed. 3. Having gone through the judgment of the Suit Court and the judgment of the First Appellate Court, I have straightway enquired from the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, what substantial question of law this second appeal entails. 4. The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff draws attention to the substantial questions of law as proposed in the paper book, from page 29 onwards and running into six pages and nineteen in number. For this reason alone, need to even reproduce them hereinbelow is not felt. The questions have been formulated without regard to what constitutes substantial question of law, as detailed in law noticed in Dalip Singh Vs. Tulsi Ram (Deceased) Through LRs 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10833. 5. Suffice it is to state that the suit, from which this Second Appeal arises, was instituted for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants No.1 to 4 from (i) interfering in the peaceful possession of the appellant/plaintiff of the ground floor and the three storeyed garage block forming part of property No.D-18, Kalindi Colony, Ring Road, New Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan filed along with the plaint; (ii) making any additions alterations, unauthorised constructions on the first and barsati floors of the property; and for restraining the respondent No.5 Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) from sanctioning any plans of construction in the said property at the instance of the other respondents/defendants. 6. The Suit Court allowed the suit to the extent of restraining the respondents/defendants No.1 to 4 from interfering in peaceful possession of the appellant/plaintiff of the constructed portion of the ground floor and three storeyed garage block in the property and by restraining the respondent/defendants No.1 to 4 from forcibly dispossessing the appellant/plaintiff from the constructed portion of the ground floor and three storeyed garage block. 7. What transpires after hearing the counsels is, that there is a title dispute between the appellant/plaintiff on the one hand and the respondents/defendants no.1 to 4 on the other hand with respect to the property and which title dispute is subject matter of two other litigations inter se parties. 8. The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has drawn attention to the site plan Ex. P1 in the Suit Court file showing the entire property. A perusal of the said site plan reveals that besides the constructed portions, the property comprises of a front lawn, rear lawn, side open space on the one side and a driveway on the othe