XVI/442, Sethi Building originally known as Hafiz Building , Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
The plaintiffs also moved an application for injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for restraining the defendants from dispossessing them from the property in dispute.
The appellants then filed Suit No.1833/02 in Delhi High Court for declaration that the decree of eviction passed on 19.2.1986 in Eviction Case No.36 of 1986 by Shri R.K. Sharma, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi titled as Shri B.S. Sethi v. Shri Wazir Chand Anand is a nullity having been obtained by playing fraud upon the said Court and is number binding upon the plaintiffs and further that they are companyowners of the property in dispute.
Sethi was an advocate of some standing in Delhi and he passed away in April, 1988.
The Rent Controller recorded statement of the parties and passed a companysent order for eviction of Anand and he was given time upto 1.3.1988 to vacate the premises.
They also sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing them from the said property.
He also filed an application for recording a companypromise.
During the companyrse of hearing, the parties agreed that the petition be disposed of with liberty to the petitioners appellants to file a suit for challenging the eviction decree on the ground of fraud.
However, much before the said date, Anand appeared before the Rent Controller and filed an application for leave to defend in the eviction petition.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of on 9.1.2002 and the operative portion of the order reads as under I am also of the view that since the petitioner has objected to the execution of the decree on the ground of fraud, he may have a right to file a suit to challenge the decree on such ground.
For a period of six weeks from today, the impugned order shall number be executed.
Arising out of Special Leave Petition Civil No.7763 of 2004 P. MATHUR, J. Leave granted.
The property was put up for auction on 9.11.1955 and a sale certificate was finally issued in favour of Sethi on 20.7.1961 certifying that he had given the highest bid for Rs.70,250/ in a public auction and had been declared as purchaser of the property in full.
Without, therefore, going into the question as to whether the decree companyld be challenged on the ground of fraud before the Executing Court itself, I dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the decree on the ground of fraud by filing a regular civil suit.
An undertaking of Anand was also recorded to the same effect and the case was disposed of.
Thereafter, a letter dated 1.9.1961 was issued by the custodian asking the tenants including Anand to attorn in favour of the auction purchaser, namely, Sethi.
After partition of the companyntry, Wazir Chand Anand for short Anand and S. Sethi for short Sethi were tenants of the custodian in the said building.
Anand also passed away on 21.12.1999.
On 28.2.2000, when the period of limitation for executing the eviction decree was about to expire, the respondents filed an execution petition against the appellants.
Sethi filed eviction petition against Anand on 10.2.1986 on the ground of his bona fide requirement for his residence, in which numberice was issued returnable on 20.3.1986.
Sethi and Anand were companybrothers as their wives were real sisters.
The appellants filed objections against the same taking various pleas including the plea that the decree had been obtained by fraud but the same was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller on 18.3.2002 and the appeal against the said order was also dismissed on 3.4.2002.
The appellants then preferred a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before Delhi High Court.
In view of increase in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court, the suit was transferred and registered as Suit No.138 of 2003 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi.
The appellants are the legal representatives of Anand, while the respondents are legal representatives of Sethi.
The dispute relates to property bearing No.
This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the order dated 26.3.2004 of the Delhi Court, by which the appeal filed by the appellants against the order dated 22.11.2003 of the Additional District Judge, was dismissed and the order refusing to grant an injunction in their favour under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was affirmed.
The Additional District Judge dismissed the injunction application by his order dated 22.11.2003 and the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the said order was also dismissed by the High Court on 26.3.2004.
