A plaintiff in a case related to property dispute has withdrawn his suit after a local court in Delhi appointed Advocate Kartik Kumar as Local Commissioner in the case.
Civil Judge Ankit Karan Singh of West Delhi Courts had appointed Advocate Kumar as the Local Commissioner in the case on August 14, 2023.
The court directed Advocate Kumar to visit the property on August 16 and find out as to who was in possession of the suit property at Khasra no 531 measuring 500 square yards, situated in the extended lal dora abadi of village Mundka, Delhi.
Following the development, plaintiff Sunil Arora withdrew his suit on August 16.
The court had directed the LC to find out whether any goods lying in the suit premises belonged to the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff was conducting any business or other work from the suit premises.
While hearing a petition filed by one Sunil Arora under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the court observed that at this stage, it could not be said that the plaintiff was in settled possession of the suit property since during the arguments, the Counsel for the plaintiff had vehemently opposed the appointment of Local Commissioner, even though the defendant was willing for the same.
The judge ordered the Local Commissioner to take photographs and videos of the suit property and prepare a report in this respect within one week, determining who was in possession of the property in question currently and also since July 29, 2013.
Advocate Kumar was further directed to supply a copy of the report to the counsels of the parties. The court fixed the fees of LC at Rs 30,000 and directed the plaintiff to pay the same at the spot.
The case pertained to a claim made by both the plaintiff and the defendant on the possession of property at Khasra no 531, measuring 500 square yards, situated in the extended Lal Dora abadi of village Mundka in Delhi.
The plaintiff filed the present suit on September 30, 2014 for permanent injunction against the defendant qua suit property, which was under the possession of the applicant/defendant since July 29, 2013.
The applicant/defendant also filed an application on July 20, 2019 under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC for dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit on the grounds that it was sine qua non for the party seeking injunction to be in possession of the suit property at the time of filing the suit.
The judge noted that on March 8, 2022, the plaintiff gave a false statement before this court stating himself to be in possession of the suit property since 1994-95 in lieu of an application under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC filed by the defendant.
It was stated that on January 27, 2015, this court directed both the parties to file documents in their possession in suit property. On March 7, 2015, the plaintiff sought some more time for filing documents.
The court further noted that on April 17, 2015, the plaintiff had trespassed into the defendant’s property and captured some photos in order to show that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. A copy of the police complaint dated April 18, 2015 was also filed in this respect.
It was further stated that on July 14, 2015, the plaintiff had filed a photograph before this court to show that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and the said photograph was taken on April 17, 2015, when the plaintiff had trespassed into the suit property.
The court took in view the submissions made by the Counsel for the plaintiff that the Delhi High Court had granted status quo qua the possession of the suit property in CS (OS) No. 352/2016 and observed that it was not disturbing the status quo order of the High Court, but only trying to find out the actual status of the property.
(Case title: Sunil Arora vs Anil Arora)