1. By this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner (defendant before the trial court) has assailed order dated 20th April, 2009 passed by Senior Civil Judge confirming order of the Civil Judge on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC made by the respondent. It is submitted by the petitioner that both the courts below passed the orders ignoring the material facts and the documents, though the respondent had no prima facie case.

2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that Mr. Sunil Jindal (respondent herein), who is brother-in-law (brother of husband of the petitioner) of Mrs. Mamta Gupta (petitioner herein) filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner and her husband and others alleging therein that he was in possession of second

floor of the property No.B-5/29, Sector 7, Rohini with terrace rights. The petitioner and other defendants were related to him and were residing in first floor of the property as licensees but due to mala fide intention they filed criminal case against him and harassed him. They disconnected water connection and when he applied for separate water connection for second floor, they did not allow plumber to install the new water connection. The police of Police Station Rohini at the behest of defendants also tried to stop him from installing new water connection. He, therefore, wanted the court to issue a permanent injunction restraining defendant from obstructing him in installing new water connection and obstructing him from ingress and egress to the second floor.

3. The stand of the petitioner before courts below was that the plaintiff, Mr. Sunil Jindal had sold out the property in question by executing General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will, Receipt of payment of money, etc. All original documents were in possession of the petitioner. Since the plaintiff was closely related to respondent, he prevailed upon the petitioner for handing him over original documents on the plea that he needed them for some use and would return them in 3-4 days. After the documents were handed over to him, he became dishonest. He did not return the documents and thereafter tried to forcibly occupy the second floor. A complaint of trespass was lodged against the respondent since he put his lock over the doors of the second floor where goods of the petitioner were lying. It is submitted that the plaintiff/respondent never lived at B-5/29, Sector 7, Rohini. He was resident of C-132, Prashant Vihar, Delhi. This premises at Rohini had been sold by him to the petitioner, Mrs. Mamta Gupta.

4. Learned Civil Judge after considering the documents filed by both the parties observed that the plaintiff had prima facie case in his favour showing his possession on second floor of the property and issued an order that the defendant, i.e., the petitioner

herein shall not interfere in his possession or stop him from the entrance to second floor of the property. The learned Senior Civil Judge before whom appeal came upheld the order.

5. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that a Local Commissioner was appointed by the High Court on 3rd March, 2006 in a revision petition filed by the petitioner. The Local Commissioner had visited the premises on 4th March, 2006 and inspected first and second floor of property No.B-5/29, Sector 7, Rohini. His report was very material to consider the prima facie possession of the second floor and this report was ignored. When the Local Commissioner visited second floor, he found that the second floor was lying locked. It was stated by the petitioner that this lock was put by the respondent (plaintiff before the trial court) in place of the lock of the petitioner. The Local Commissioner peeped inside the second floor through broken window pane and found that the second floor was in bad shape. The window panes were broken, switch boards were hanging, there was a thick layer of