INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. Order impugned is the order dated 18.8.2006 which is the order of the appellate court endorsing the finding of the trial court dated 23.9.2004 wherein the application filed by the applicant namely Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust under Order XXII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been dismissed. These are two concurrent findings by the two courts below.

2. At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that this court is sitting in its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and unless and until there is a manifest illegality or gross error which has led to a miscarriage of justice no interference is called for. It is in this background that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel of for the parties have been appreciated.

3. The record shows that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff M/s DLF Universal Ltd. against five defendants i.e. Delhi Wakf Board who had been arrayed as defendant no.1 and defendants no.2 to 5 who are private parties. This is a suit for possession. Contention of the plaintiff is that colony namely Greater Kailash was developed by the predecessor interest of the plaintiff. A piece of land measuring 1410 sq. yards forming part of the land of the plaintiff has been encroached upon by defendants no.2 and 5 through defendant no.1. A decree for possession of the aforenoted suit property has been prayed for. Written statement was filed by the defendants. The contention of defendant no.1 is that he has already got a decree dated 29.01.1983 in his favour qua the suit land; this decree has remained unchallenged and this land now falls to his share. Defendants no.2 to 5 have supported the stand of defendant no.1.

4. Present application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code has been filed by the applicant namely Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust. This application has been filed on 13.9.1996. Suit has been filed on 18.11.1982. By virtue of this application, it has been contended that a settlement deed dated 24.7.1989 had been arrived at between the MCD and the DLF Universal Ltd; in terms of this settlement the MCD has become the owner of this suit land where the applicant i.e. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust is a lessee; in this scenario the applicant Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust has sought prayer for substitution as plaintiff in place of the present plaintiff; alternate prayer is that Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust be made a co-plaintiff and the MCD be also arrayed as a defendant.

5. This contention was hotly contested and has suffered two adverse orders as noted supra i.e. order dated 23.9.2004 which was the first order passed by the Civil Judge and subsequent order of the appellate court dated 18.8.2006 vide which the appellate court had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dismissing the application. The vehement argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that in terms of this settlement of 24.7.1989 (which was between the DLF Universal Ltd and the MCD) the right of the applicant has been recognized as a lessee (Clause-I internal page 3 of the aforenoted settlement); contention being that this document is an undisputed document; undisputed fact thus being that Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust is a lessee in the suit property and as such his interest being in jeopardy; he has right to be heard in the present case; he has accordingly made the prayer as noted supra. To support his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2006(1) SCC 148 Amiteshwar Anand Vs. Virender Mohan Singh as also another judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2001) 6 SCC 534 Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs. Jai Prakash University & Ors. that plain language of Rule 10 of Order 22 does not suggest that leave can be sought by that person alone upon whom the interest is devolved; contention being that not only the assigner or the assi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document