20,000/ each after taking loan from their friends and filed the case for execution of decree That the companytents of para 11, 12, 13 of the writ petition are denied.
Execution was taken out of the said two decrees and then transferred to Delhi for execution.
The other decree passed by SubJudge 1st, Gaya is also a decree making an award the rule of the companyrt.
A site plan is attached to the said decree specifying Shop No.4 which the defendant to the said decree was to hand over to the plaintiff therein.
The award is said to have been obtained by one Sri Bhupinder Singh, S o Sri Harcharan Singh, R o Sri Mantapur, Bhangaghar, Gauhati against Sri Jhumman Singh, S o Sri Chadda Singh, R o Titar Pur, New Delhi the first writ petitioner in this writ petition .
In default, the plaintiff, Sri Ravi Raj Singh, was held entitled to execute the said decree and recover the possession.
4 forming part of premises WZ 93/4 situated at Titar Pur, Main Najafgarh Road, Tagore Garden, New Delhi.
Two decrees were, obtained against the Petitioners 1 and 2 one from the Court of Assistant Dis trict Judge 1 at Gauhati against the first petitioner and the other from the SubJudge 1, Gaya Bihar against the second petitioners father.
The decree says that the defendant, Sri Jhumman Singh shall pay a sum of Rupees fifty thousand plus interest twelve per cent per annum from April 1, 1992 till the day of payment to Sri Bhupinder Singh and shall also hand over peaceful vacant possession of the property bearing Shop No.
With respect to the circumstances in which he took out execution of the aforesaid two decrees against Petitioners 1 and 2, the third respondent has made the following averments, which an better set out in his own words It is submitted that one Bhupender Singh of Gauhati and other Rabi Raj from Gaya companytacted the replying respondent and told him that they wants to execute a decree against Jhumman Singh and Alanur therefore after execution of decree they will give the shop to some body else and will get pagari.
The deponent told them that he is the owner of the shops therefore will number allow any third person to enter in his shops therefore the deponent asked them to sell the decree to th deponent and execute the Power of Attorney in his favour.
The replying respondent then requested them number to execute the decree as the he is owner of the disputed shops but they did number accept the deponent request.
He admits that the petitioners were tenants in respect of the four shops under Smt.
On his death in or about 1983, his wife, Smt.
Against the third writ petitioner, Sri Vijay Kumar Behl, he says, he has filed a suit Suit No.97 of 1993 seeking his eviction.
Petitioners 1 and 2 came to know of the said decrees only when the Bailiff came along with the warrants of delivery of possession of the said premises.
According to the petitioners, one Siyaram Gupta was the, ownof the said five shops.
In the written statement, he states, Vijay Kumar Behl has admitted the ownership of Smt.
Accordingly, they pray for issu ance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the C.B.I. to enquire and investigate into the circumstances in which the aforesaid decrees were passed and to take appropriate action against the persons responsible therefor.
The award which has been made a rule of the Court directs, inter alia, that Sri Ala Noor S o Sri Amir Bux, R o Titarpur, New Delhi shall hand over to the plaintiff therein peaceful vacant possession of the Shop No.3 Conning part of property No.
It amounts to criminal offence besides a gross abuse of process of the Court.
Urmila Devi but denies the petitioners claim of title.
On verification from the Court records, the petitioners say, they came to know the particulars of said decrees.
The decree from the Gauhati companyrt is dated May 18, 1994 in Arbitration Suit No.47 of 1994 making an award the rule of the Court.
Petitioners 1 and 2 say that they had numberhing to do with the persons shown as plaintiffs in the said decree, had numberdealings with them much less was there any dispute between them either at Gauhati, Gaya or anywhere else.
He states that he is the owner of the shops in occupation of the writ petitioners by virtue of the sale deed s executed by the aforementioned landlady in his favour in the year 1992.
Urmila Devi.
93/3, Titar Pur, Main Najafgarh Road, Tagore Garden, New Delhi 27 specified in the annexed plan within fifteen days of the said Award being made a rule of the Court.
The four writ petitioners are the tenants of four shops companyprised in property bearing No.
They submit that obtaining the said fraudulent decrees and the manner in which they were, sought to be executed and the petitioners sought to be evicted from their shops is the result of a criminal companyspiracy hatched by the third respondent.
After the death of Smt.
WZ 93, Titarpur, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi 1 10027, while the third respondent is occupying the fifth shop as a tenant.
Sale deeds were also executed in their favour.
The writ petition was entertained by this Court on September 5, 1994 and stay of dispossession pursuant to the aforesaid arbitral awards granted.
Towards the end of the year 1992, the petitioners say, the landlady offered to sell the shops to the respective tenants.
Urmila Devi and her three daughters became the owners.
Urmila Devi, the petitioners say, the third respondent, Sri Sangat Singh started declaring himself as the owner of all the five shops and demanded rent from the petitioners which they resisted.
Three of the petitioners purchased the three shops occupied by them.
The petitioners companyplained that with a view to get the writ petitioners evicted from the shops otherwise than by due process of law, the third respondent resorted to a devious device.
The replying respondent paid them Rs.
The third respondent, Sri Sangat Singh, has appeared and filed a companynter affidavit.
Since the facts of the case are themselves demonstrative of the said abuse perpetrated by Respondent No.3, we, would set them out first.
P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. This writ petition brings to light a serious abuse of process of companyrt indeed an abuse of the process of more than one companyrt indulged in by certain unscrupulous persons.
