( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Proceduce for issue of an ad interim injunction restraining respondent No. 2. Mrs. Indra Paintal, or any other person who might be inducted into the property by the said respondent, her servants and agents from carrying out any construction or parting with possession over the plot bearing No. A-2/121, Safdarjang Development Residential Scheme, New Delhi, till the disposal of the probate petition.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts which gave rise to the present case are as under: that the petitioner has filed a probate petition No. 45/89 wherethrough he seeks probate in respect of the registered will dated February 19,1973 made by the deceased Smt. Dhan Kaur i. e. his mother in favour of the petitioner. The deceased left behind a plot bearing No. A-2/121, Safdarjang Development Residential Scheme, New Delhi. The deceased breathed her last on January 13,1977 at Holy Family Hospital. New Delhi. The deceased through the said will bequeathed to the petitioner the said plot of land.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is not a resident of India and has been residing continuously abroad. The petitioner received from the Delhi Development Authority, respondent No. 5, addressed to the testratrix Smt. Dhan Kaur that the lease in respect of the said plot of land would be cancelled if the constructions were not raised on the said plot of land as the lease inrespect of the said plot was granted for the purpose of raising construction for residential purposes. In the abovesaid circumstances the petitioner requested his sister i. e. respondent No. 2 to approach the DDA for the property being mutated in favour of the heirs of the testatrix i. e. the petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3 as the petitioner at that time was not in possession of the original will nor a copy thereof. In view of the above, the said property was got mutated in the joint names of the petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3 in order to preclude the DDA from cancelling the lease deed in favour of the deceased. Later on, certain constructions were raised on the said plot of land (for short the disputed property ). A completion certificate was also issued.

( 4 ) THE petitioner came to India on November 26,1992 and inspected the disputed property. To his dismay and horror he found that the whole of the structure raised thereon has been demolished and the entire disputed property had been dag up. On enquiries it was revealed that respondent No. 2 was purporting to induct certain strangers into the said property known as Harmeet Singh Ghai, Pankaj Chaudhary and A. K. Jain. The petitioner in this connection tried to contact respondent No. 2 who refused to meet him. He informed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi with regard to the proposed unauthorised construction being carried on. The petitioner is thus likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury in case strangers are inducted into the said property and rights are created in favour of third parties in the said property. It has thus been prayed that an ad interim injunction be issued restraining respondent No. 2, her servants, agents and representatives to make any construction over the disputed property,

( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 filed a reply to the said application. According to her, she has sold and disposed of her share in the disputed property in favour of Shri Harmeet Singh Ghai for a total consideration of Rs. 12,50,000. 00. It has further been averred that she has neither raised any construction nor demolished any. Thus, if the petitioner has got any cause of action it is against Harmeet Singh Ghai.

( 6 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 Smt. Loveleen Mehta has supported the case of the petitioner. According to her, the respondent No. 2, her servants, agents and representatives be restrained from raising any construction over the disputed property.

( 7 ) THE application has been vehemently opposed on behalf of the objector i. e. Busines Associates. It has been urged for and on be