Back
High Court Of Delhi
RAMNIK GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
SNEH LATA GUPTA - Respondent
First Appeal Order (OS) 86 of 2001
Decided On : 05/11/2001
Injunction - Impleadment - Order 40 Rule 1, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Section 151 Civil Procedure Code - [Order 40 Rule 1, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Section 151 Civil Procedure Code] - The court discussed the application for appointment of a Receiver and issuing order of restraint, and the interpretation of the orders passed in relation to the injunction and alienation. The court concluded that the injunction granted on 3. 6. 1983 was not continued, allowing the impleadment of a new defendant to purchase the share of other defendants.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a claim for partition, permanent injunction, and rendition of accounts with respect to the estate left by deceased Shri B. D. Gupta. An application was filed for the appointment of a Receiver and issuing order of restraint with respect to properties. The court passed orders related to the application, and a new defendant sought impleadment based on alleged share purchases.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injunction granted on 3. 6. 1983 was not continued, allowing the impleadment of the new defendant to purchase the share of other defendants.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of the orders related to the application for appointment of a Receiver and issuing order of restraint, and whether the injunction granted on 3. 6. 1983 was continued.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the orders passed in relation to the injunction and alienation, concluding that the injunction granted on 3. 6. 1983 was not continued.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the court's finding that the injunction granted on 3. 6. 1983 was not continued, allowing the impleadment of a new defendant to purchase the share of other defendants.
( 1 ) ORDER passed on 23. 1. 2001 by learned Single judge on an application filed by Satinder Singh Chhabra (respondent No. 13) directing him to be impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit is under challenge by the appellant. The appellant is defendant No. 1 in the suit. Needless to add that plaintiff has not challenged the order of impleadment.
( 2 ) FACTS In brief are that on 5. 4. 1983 respondent no. 1, one of the daughters of late Shri B. D. Gupta filed a suit against 13 defendants claiming decree for partition, permanent injunction and rendition of accounts with respect to the estate left by deceased shri B. D. Gupta. Alongwith the suit an application (I. A. 1546/83) was also filed under Order 40 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code read with Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code praying for appointment of Receiver and for issuing order of restraint with respect to properties as described in Schedules A, B and C attached to the plaint. The prayer clause of the application reads as under --
"it is, therefore, prayed that during the pendency of the suit in the interest of Justice and in order to preserve the properties from being alienated the following reliefs may be granted to the plaintiff :- i) A Receiver may be appointed with direction to take charge and control of all the properties mentioned in the Schedules ABC in the plan annexed to the plaint and the receiver may also be directed to deposit the rent in court and prosecute the legal cases and take custody and charge of M/s. Gupta sports House from deft. No. l and 2 and their attorneys, representatives and family members. ii ) Defendants 1,2, 6, 7, 9 and 11 may be restrained by an ex-parte ad-interim injunction from dispossessing the plaintiff from the portion of the house No. 13, Jain mandir Road, New Delhi as shown red in the plan annexed to the plaint and throwing away her goods particularly the three almirahs and the cooler placed at the marks XYZ and ZI in the plan, kitchenwares and obstructing her from using the common passage, common bath room, and enjoyment of other common facilities; and iii) Defendants be also restrained from alienating and transferring the properties left by the deceased Shri b. D. Gupta as mentioned , in schedules ABC annexed to the plaint and transferring the tenancy right and the goodwill of the shop M/s. Gupta Sports House. 25-F, Connaught place, New Delhi. iv) Any other order or direction this hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be also passed. "
( 3 ) THE aforementioned application came up before the Court on 3. 6. 1983. The application was adjourned to 14. 7. 1983 for hearing arguments and in the meanwhile it was directed that there shall be no parting with possession or alienation of properties. Statue quo was directed to be maintained by the parties. Arguments on the application alongwith two other miscellaneous applications were heard. Orders on the said applications were passed on 17. 2. 1984. The application (I. A. 1546/83) was allowed and a Receiver was appointed to collect rents from all the tenants, maintain accounts and make disbursement regarding expenditure of the property. The Receiver was to be named on 21. 2. 1984 to which date the case was adjourned.
( 4 ) ON 13. 7. 1993 an application (I. A. 7316/93) was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code by Satinder Singh chhabra for being impleaded as a defendant in the suit on the ground that by various sale deeds executed by defendants 6 and 7 and by Shri Sandeep Gupta, 9/0 Late shri S. K. Gupta (defendant No. 2) he had purchased their undivided share in various properties, which are the subject matter of the suit and further stated that apart from the sale deeds various agreements to sell had also been entered into between him and defendants 6 and 7. Shri Sandeep Gupta and Shri Jai Deep Gupta. The application was vehemently opposed by defendant No. 1 the main ground on which the application was oppo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
