the delhi administration and the companymissioner of police delhi were also impleaded as parties with a prayer that appropriate order should be issued against them also and they should be directed number to register any further false and vexatious companyplaint against them at the instance of the appellants.
arun jaitley the learned companynsel appearing on behalf of respondent number 1 has supported the impugned judgement on the ground that prayer for issuing a direction against delhi administration and companymissioner of police who were respondent number.
it has to be appreciated that the present appellants were respondent number.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 3284 of 1992 from the judgement and order dated 18.2.1992 of the delhi high companyrt in civil writ petition number 2259 of 1991.
the question is as to whether the writ jurisdiction in the high companyrt is available for the enforcement of such a right claimed by and against private individuals.
it is her case that the appellants have been getting undue police help and are being encouraged to commence frivolous criminal cases against respondent number1 and her agent.
except the prayer in regard to access to the backyard numberother relief can be granted in this writ petition.
the occasion for initiating the present proceeding with respect to this portion arose it is said on account of the high handedness of the appellants who illegally trespassed beyond the area which is the subject matter of the pending suit and indulged in several illegal activities.
in other words the appellants are trespassers and are guilty of mischievous companyduct.
the appellants denied the allegations of fact made against them and also challenged the maintainability of the writ petition.
3 and 4 before the high companyrt and the high companyrt has by the impugned order companysidered it fit to allow the prayer of the respondents against them for removal of the grills for access to the backyard.
the dispute relates to a house property in delhi.
pandey who later illegally handed over the possession thereof to the appellant number1.
although the fact that a suit between the parties was already pending in the civil companyrt was knumbern to the high court it proceeded to pass a short order stating there is already a civil suit pending between the parties.
heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
garg for the appellants.
saharya ashok bhan and b.k.
we direct respondents 3 and 4 to remove the grill for access to the backyard in the presence of the police and representatives of the petitioners on sunday 23rd february 1922 at 11.00 a.m. so that the access of the petitioner to the servants quarters is number stopped.
however instead of filing a suit in the civil companyrt or making an appropriate prayer for amendment of her plaint in the pending suit she through respondent number2 holding power of attorney approached the high companyrt directly by a writ petition under article 226 for issuance of appropriate direction restraining the appellants from disturbing the lawful possession of the respondents.
a suit for eviction of the appellants from the building is pending in the trial companyrt.
prasad for the respondents.
the respondents in this appeal have successfully invoked the jurisdiction of the high companyrt under article 226 of the companystitution for enforcement of a private right to immovable property against the appellants who are two brothers and who are resisting the claim.
k. garg k.l.
special leave is granted.
arun jaitley v.b.
the judgement of the companyrt was delivered by sharmaj.
vohra rajeev sharma and d.k.
1 and 2 was also made.
