( 1 ) C. M. (M) 672 of 2002 is directed against the judgment and order dated 2. 9. 2002 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, in M. C. A. No. 1 of 2002 whereby the learned Judge, while adjudicating upon an appeal against the order of the trial court/civil Judge, Delhi, dated 21. 11. 2000 allowing an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, held that the appeal was devoid of any merits and upheld the order of the trial court.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case, as noted by the learned Additional District Judge, are that:

"sh. Abdul Ghaffar i. e. Father of plaintiff no. 1 and Shri Abdul Sattar i. e. Father of plaintiff no. 2 had purchased plot no. 40 in Hathi Khana Scheme, Bara Hindu Rao Road, Pul Bangesh, Delhi from Shri Mohd. Naqi in their joint names in the years 1944 and 1945. Both the aforesaid persons entered into an agreement in the year 1962 that they would let out the ground floor of the said plot after raising the construction over the same at monthly rent of Rs. 2000. 00. In the year 1962 the Punjab National Bank (to be referred as appellant bank) approached the father of the plaintiffs and entered into an agreement. The DDA did not grant no objection certificate for construction of the plot for use of the bank. On 30. 11. 64, the office of then mayor of the office of MCD informed the respective fathers of the plaintiff that is, the respondents, that according to the master plan all vacant plots are to be acquired for community facilities. The appellant bank assured the fathers of the respondents that being the public utility concern they would get the plan sanctioned from the authority. On the assurance given by the appellant bank the aforesaid plots were given to the appellant bank vide agreement dated 31. 3. 65 and 9. 10. 65. The appellant bank further assured the respondents that after getting the plan sanctioned original agreement dated 28. 6. 63 in between the bank and owners would be implemented, so the sale deed dated 31. 3. 65 and 9. 10. 65 with regard to plot no. 40 and 41 were executed in favour of the bank. The original agreement were kept by the appellant bank and typed copies were handed over to the respondents father. The sale considerations were paid to the respondents father and were kept by the appellant bank in the form of fixed deposits subject to bank s lien thereon and the bank also kept th fixed receipts with itself and till date th bank has not paid the said amount to the owners of the legal representatives of the owners of the plots. The bank has kept the plot as well as the sale amount and original documents illegally with it and thus, cheated the fathers of the respondents and caused them a great loss. The plots were grabbed by the appellant bank without paying a single penny to its owners. The appellant bank has taken the matter before the DDA regarding the grant of permission for raising construction but the same was rejected on 9. 4. 1973. The bank sent another letter dated 27. 4. 1973 along with the aforesaid letter dated 9. 4. 73 to the respective fathers of th respondents because the owners of the plot were equally interested in the construction of the plot as per the agreement with the appellant bank. It has been further submitted that the appellant was entitled for the possession of the ground floor on agreed rent and the fathers of the respondents were entitled to occupy the floors constructed above the ground floor as their resident. So the appellant bank has no other right or title except the limited right of tenancy. The appellant bank applied for sanction of the plan for raising construction over the land but same was not accepted by the competent authority who raised the objection that bank has failed to fulfill those objections. One of the objections raised by the competent authority is mutation from DDA in favour of the bank. The respondents also approached many a time to the officials of the bank to return the plot in question as per the terms of the ag