MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 25th February, 2008 passed in CS (OS) No. 277/2004 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed two applications of the Appellant, one under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC and other under Order

.6 rule 16 read with Order 7 rule 11 CPC while disposing of other applications i.e. I.A. No. 6058/07 (under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC) , I.A. No. 6057/2007 (under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC), I.A. No. 5382/2007 (under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC) and I.A. No.2192/2006 (under Section 151 CPC).

2. The brief facts of the matter are that the owner of Chauhan Jewellers who are having their offices at Karol Bagh and South Extension were introduced to an Iraqi businessman by Respondent No.3, Mr. Vijay Khanna.

3. The said Chauhan Jewellers dealt with the said Iraqi as a result of which the cheque given by the said Iraqi national to the Chauhan Bros. bounced and there was a dispute between Chauhan Jewellers and their office and Respondent No.3 i.e. Vijay Khanna.

4. The case of the Appellant is that the owner of Chauhan Jewellers with the help of various senior officers of Police foisted a number of false cases against the said Respondent No.3 and got him arrested and also against Respondent No.4 who is the wife of Respondent No.3. It is alleged by the appellant that the said owners of Chauhan Jewellers got some documents forcibly signed from the respondent No. 3 and 4 on which forged documents were prepared later regarding the sale of the residential house at 189A, Carriappa Marg, Khirki Extension, New Delhi-110062. The sale of the said residential house was shown to have been executed in favour of respondent No.7 i.e. Sh. Kedar Nath Bhardwaj.

.5. Subsequently, respondent No.3 and 4 filed a writ petition which was dismissed. However, on appeal being Civil Misc. Petition No.3895/1998 made to the Supreme Court, the matter was remanded back to this Court and vide order dated 5th November, 1998 in Crl. Writ Petition No.779/1994, it was held that the said documents of the alleged sale to respondent No.7 were forged and the respondent No.7 was in illegal possession of the said premises belonging to respondent No.3 and 4. The respondent No.1 and 2 who claimed to have purchased the said residential house from respondent No.7 were directed to vacate the said residential house and hand over the possession back to respondent No.3 and 4 who were the original owners of the same.

6. The Special Leave Petition against the said order dated 5th November, 1998 filed by respondent No.1 and 2 ie Anil Soni and Ms. Madhu Soni was dismissed by order dated 6th August, 1999. However, it was made clear that the question of title is not decided either by the High Court or by the Supreme Court in the said order.

7. In view of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 5th November, 1998 the possession of the residential house was handed over by respondent No.1 and 2 to respondent No.3 and 4. Thereafter the respondent No.1 and 2 filed suit for possession of the said property being CS (OS) No.277/1998 before this Court after a lapse of five years for handing over of the possession. No injunction was granted by this Court in the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. During the pendency of the suit respondent No.3 and 4 sold the said residential house to respondent No.5 and 6 who later on sold the same to the present appellant.

8. In view of the above the respondent No.1 and 2 filed an application for impleadment of the present appellant as defendant No.3 (c) and further prayed for restraining the appellant from selling the said residential house to any other person.

9. The learned Single Judge passed the interim order against the appellant on 22nd May, 2007. Upon the service of the said order, the appellant entered appearance and also filed an application being IA No.8258/2007 under Order 6 rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the same is an abuse of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document