( 1 ) THIS is one of those cases where a rich litigant feels, and in fact convinces himself, that not only there is no law for the rich but such a litigant can also, with impugnity and without batting an eyelid, try and mislead the Court at every juncture. The facts, as will presently be set out, clearly bring this to light.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff has filed the present suit along with anapplication under Order 39 Rules I and 2 and the prayer in the suit is for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking demolition action or scaling of the premises bearing No. 7-A/1, W. E. A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The averments made in the plaint are that these premises were purchased by the plaintiff vide a registered deed dated 7th April, 1983 and thereafter a plan was submitted for demolishing the old structure and constructing a new building. It is alleged in the plaint that the building plans were approved by the Corporation and thereafter the building was constructed as per the building plans. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the building, when completed, was inspected and compounding fee of Rs. 210. 00 was levied which meant that the building had been constructed according to the plans. According to the plaintiff, the electricity and water connections were also installed and the house tax has also been paid and the compounding fee was payable in respect of minor deviations which had taken place. The further case of the plaintiff is that the completion certificate was granted on 1st January, 1988 which conclusively proved that the building had been constructed according to the sanctioned plan.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaint, the plaintiff was surprised to find a demolition squad reaching the site on 24th April, 1988 attempting to demolish some portion the building which had been constructed. It is pleaded that no notice as prescribed under Section 343 of the Municipal Corporation Act had been served and the intended action which has been taken is illegal especially when the building has been constructed as per the sanctioned plan evidenced by the completion certificate.

( 4 ) ON the aforesaid allegations being made, ad interim ex parte injunction was issued on 27th April, 1988. It may here be stated that this was one of the suits which was filed along with two other suits Nos. 892 and 896 of 1988 where similar allegations were made and ex parte injunctions obtained.

( 5 ) AFTER notice was served, counsel for the defendant appeared and in Court it was stated by the plaintiffs counsel that the premises which were in existence were in accordance with the completion drawings which had been filed by the plaintiff prior to obtaining the completion certificate. It may here be explained that the Corporation Bye-laws require the owner to submit completion drawings which would signify the building as constructed by him and the building is inspected with relation to the completion drawings and if the building is as per the completion drawings and the completion drawings are not very much at variance with the building plans which bad been sanctioned earlier, a completion certificate is granted. The contention of counsel for the Corporation was that the building had not been constructed as per the completion drawings which had been furnished by the plaintiff himself.

( 6 ) IN view of the fact that the stand of the plaintiff and the defendant was at variance with each other, a Local Commissioner was appointed, with the consent of both the parties. Shri R. K. Aggarwal, Advocate was asked to go to the premises in question along with the completion drawings and to submit his report indicating as to whether the building which had been constructed is as per the completion drawings, as had been asserted by the counsel for the plaintiff.

( 7 ) SHRI Aggarwal went to the premises in question as well as the premises which were subject matter of the other suits. Separate reports were filed by Shri Aggarwal. The report of