ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. THIS IS AN UNFORTUNATE LITIGATION IN WHICH A CIVIL DISPUTE, PURE AND SIMPLE, HAS BEEN GIVEN THE COLOUR OF A CRIMINAL CASE. THE PARTIES LITIGATING ARE THE WIFE, HER SONS AND DAUGHTERS ON ONE SIDE AND THE HUSBAND ON THE OTHER. THE HUSBAND CLAIMS THAT HE HAS DIVORCED THE WIFE. IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS A HOUSE PROPERTY KNOWN AS HOUSE NO. 360-A, GALI NO. 21, ZAKIR NAGAR, OKHLA, NEW DELHI. CLAIMING TO BE IN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, THE SONS AND DAUGHTERS HAVE FILED A SUIT AGAINST THE FATHER IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DELHI, REGISTERED AS CIVIL SUIT NO. 404 OF 2003. IT IS A SUIT FOR ISSUANCE OF PERMANENT PREVENTIVE INJUNCTION. THE PLAINTIFFS HAD PRAYED FOR THE DEFENDANT (RESPONDENT 2 BEFORE US) BEING RESTRAINED FROM DISPOSSESSING THE PLAINTIFFS FROM THE SUIT PROPERTY AND ALSO RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANT FROM ENTERING INTO ANY DEALING RELATING TO THE PROPERTY.

3. IN THE YEAR 1993, RESPONDENT 2 INITIATED PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 145 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (CRPC) COMPLAINING OF APPREHENSION OF BREACH OF PEACE OCCASIONED BY DISPUTE AS TO POSSESSION OVER THE HOUSE PROPERTY. THE LEARNED SDM PASSED AN ORDER IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT 2 PROTECTING HIS POSSESSION AND FORBEARING ALL DISTURBANCES THEREIN BY THE APPELLANTS. THE APPELLANTS PREFERRED A REVISION PETITION IN THE COURT OF F SESSIONS JUDGE. THE LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE HAS REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SDM. RESPONDENT 2 PREFERRED A PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE HIGH COURT HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE AND PARTLY MODIFIED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SDM. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE APPELLANTS HAVE FILED THIS APPEAL BY SPECIAL LEAVE.

4. IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES THAT THIS VERY PROPERTY WHICH IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THESE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IS ALSO THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CIVIL SUIT PENDING IN THE CIVIL COURT. THE QUESTION AS TO POSSESSION OVER THE PROPERTY OR ENTITLEMENT TO POSSESSION WOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE CIVIL COURT. THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS HAVE REMAINED PENDING FOR ABOUT A DECADE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY PROPRIETY BEHIND ALLOWING THESE PROCEEDINGS TO CONTINUE IN VIEW OF THE PARTIES HAVING ALREADY APPROACHED THE CIVIL COURT. WHICHEVER WAY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 145 CRPC MAY TERMINATE, THE ORDER OF THE CRIMINAL COURT WOULD ALWAYS BE SUBJECT TO DECISION BY THE CIVIL COURT. INASMUCH AS THE PARTIES ARE ALREADY BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO LET THE CIVIL SUIT BE DECIDED AND THEREIN APPROPRIATE INTERIM ORDER BE PASSED TAKING CARE OF THE GRIEVANCES OF THE PARTIES BY MAKING SUCH ARRANGEMENT AS MAY REMAIN IN OPERATION DURING THE HEARING OF THE CIVIL SUIT.

5. WE DIRECT THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 145 CRPC TO BE QUASHED. THE PARTIES ARE ALLOWED LIBERTY OF APPROACHING THE CIVIL COURT. AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED THAT CIVIL SUIT NO. 404 OF 2003 PENDING IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DELHI, IS A SUIT ONLY FOR ISSUANCE OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION. WE ALLOW THE PARTIES LIBERTY OF FILING ANY APPLICATION FOR INTERIM RELIEF THEREIN.

6. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS BEFORE US THAT RESPONDENT 2 BRINGS ANTISOCIAL ELEMENTS AND CAUSES DISTURBANCE IN THEIR PEACEFUL LIVING IN THE HOUSE. ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT 2 THAT RESPONDENT 2 IS AN OLD-AGED PERSON AND WITHOUT ANY SHELTER OVER HIS HEAD AND PRESENTLY HE IS ALMOST AT THE MERCY OF OTHERS AND IT WOULD ONLY BE FAIR IF HE IS ALLOWED TO LIVE IN AT LEAST A PART OF THE SUIT PROPERTY WHICH BELONGS TO HIM. WE DO NOT PROPOSE TO ENTER INTO MERITS OF THE PLEAS RAISED BY EITHER PARTY BEFORE US.

7. WE HAVE SIMPLY NOTED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE PARTIES. THE CIVIL COURT, IN OUR OPINION, WOULD BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE FORUM TO TAKE CARE OF SUCH GRIEVANCES AND PASS SUCH INTERIM ORDER AS WOULD REASONABLY PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. THE CIVIL COURT MAY ISSUE AN AD INTERIM INJUNCTION,