The central legal point established is that parties should be allowed to lead evidence to prove the state of the property before restraint orders in cases involving unauthorized construction.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFF filed suit for injunction against the defendants on the allegations that the defendants who were in possession of the adjoining shop were carrying on unauthorised construction therein and were intending to construct a market. Along with the suit an application for ad-interim injunction was also filed. The Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the status quo as it existed on the date of filing of the suit.

( 2 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 for vacating the stay. In paragraph 7 of the application, it was stated that the property in suit was a commercial property which consisted of a shop on the ground floor, one hall on the first floor and two rooms on the second floor. The Court after hearing the parties passed an order of injunction on 19/6/1992. It was observed by the Court that defendants 1 and 2 were in possession of one shop on the ground floor, hall on the first floor and two rooms on the second floor. The Court was of the view that defendants cannot be permitted to convert the existing structure into number of shops so as to convert the same into a commercial complex in order to earn huge amount of premium. The Court, therefore, restrained the defendants from sub-dividing in any manner the existing structure till disposal of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. 1 am informed that though by passing orders on application under Order 39 Rule 4, application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 was also virtually decided but the sarpe has not been disposed of till date.

( 3 ) AFTER the dismissal of the application under Order 39 Rule 4, defendants 1 and 2 filed their written statement. In the written statement these defendants stated that they were owners of the property bearing No. 2029, 2029 and 2031 and that the ground floor of the same comprised of two shops, two kotharies and one chabutara in front and one chabutara on side towards Katra Tobacco; first floor comprised of one room and two kotharies and Second floor consisting of two rooms and a bath. This written statement was filed in February, 1993. Thereafter an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A Civil Procedure Code was filed by the plaintiffs for initiating contempt proceedings against the defendants on the allegations that the defendants had converted the ground floor shop into two and had also carried out certain other unauthorised constructions in violation of the orders passed by the Court on 5/6/1992 and 19/6/1992. Reply to the application was filed by the defendants and the denied having carried out any construction whatsoever in violation of the orders passed by the Courts. It was as in reiterated in the reply that the ground floor was comprised of two shops and two kotharies, apart from one Chabutara in front and one Chabutara on the side towards kotra Tobacco.

( 4 ) ARGUMENTS on the application of the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 2-A were heard and the Court passed order on 10/2/1995, In its order, the Court did take note of the fact that defendants had stated in the application under Order 39 rule 4 that there was a shop on the ground floor besides one hall on the first floor and two rooms on the second floor. It also took note of the fact that in the written statement the stand taken by the defendants was that ground floor consisted of two shops and two kotharies and a Chabutara each on the front and the side. The trial court also took note of the fact that a report of the inspection alleged to have been carried out by the municipal Corporation of Delhi on 29/1/1984 was also placed on record by the defendants wherein construction on the ground floor was shown to be two kotharies of the size of 8 X12 , two shops of the size of 12 x12 , one Chabutara of the size of 24 X10 and another Chabutara measuring 3 x8 apart from other construction as mentioned in the written statement. The Court, therefore, was of the opinion that the party should be given