( 1 ) THE grievance of the appellant who was the plaintiff before the learned Single Judge is that the respondent/ defendant allegedly misused the interim orders by inducting a tenant (Embassy of Zimbabwe) into the suit premises at a rate, which according to the appellant was much lower than the market rate. The learned Single Judge has held that the tenant being already in occupation of the premises and as such no relief could be granted to the appellant/ plaintiff.

( 2 ) FURTHER grievance of the appellant is that the respondent/ defendant has been allowed to withdraw 25% of the amount lying in the Court being rental amounts paid by the said Embassy, whereas the said respondent, according to appellant, has been earlier exclusively appropriating the amounts for the previous so many years and therefore, should not have been allowed to take away any further amount until she first renders accounts in the pending suit filed by the appellant/ plaintiff also for rendition of accounts.

( 3 ) ON 21. 11. 2001, we issued notice to show cause and also granted interim stay in relation to that part of the impugned order, which directed the respondent to withdraw 25% of the rent. Thereafter on 29. 4. 2002 we directed that the suit record be made available to us on the next date of hearing.

( 4 ) CONSIDERING the nature of the matter and with the consent of both the parties, we heard them on 9. 5. 2002 on the main appeal itself.

( 5 ) THE facts necessary for dealing with the present appeal fall in a very narrow compass. The appellant, as the plaintiff, filed a suit on the original side of this court for declaration, partition and rendition of accounts in relation to the estate of Mrs. Vidya Devi jagota claim. ing that the appellant, respondent No. 1 and other legal heirs of late Mrs. Vidya Devi Jagota, are entitled to 25% share each in the estate left by her,

( 6 ) THE respondent No. 1, on the other hand, contended that she was the sole beneficiary under the last Will and testament left by her husband Sh. Sushil Jagota, and that the said Will had been also duly acted upon and the property stand mutated in her name in the records of DDA.

( 7 ) ALONGWITH the suit filed by the appellant/ plaintiff prayed for an interim injunction restraining respondent from selling or alienating property. It was granted in favour of the appellant/ plaintiff and on 20. 11. 2000, the said interim order of injunction was confirmed. While confirming the interim order it was directed that both parties will be free to locate a tenant for the premises No. B-58, Paschimi Marg, Vasant vihar (which was a part of the suit property) on or before 31st December, 2000. It was further directed that details of the prospective tenant, as well as rent, be filed in Court by way of an application and that prior permission would be obtained for letting out the said property. The rent was to be deposited in the Court and disbursement could be prayed For by either of the parties, and would be decided by the Court. Thus the injunction application (IA No. 11715/2000) was disposed of on the above terms.

( 8 ) ON 1. 12. 2000, the respondent/ defendant filed an application (IA No. 124/2000) seeking permission of the learned Single Judge to let out the premises to the zimbawian Embassy. It was informed to the learned Single judge before whom the IA was listed, and same was not disputed before us at the time of hearing of the appeal, that advance copy of this application, had been duly served upon the counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff. Keeping in view the service of the advance copy upon the opposite party (i. e. appellant/ plaintiff) and the fact that the proposed tenant (Zimbabwean Embassy) was paying higher rent of Rs. 1,20,000/-- as compared to the previous tenant, permission as was sought was granted by the learned Single Judge.

( 9 ) ON that very day i. e. immediately after permission was granted, the respondent/ defendant let out the premises under a signed document, to th