The evidence can be led only on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, and the relief of injunction is a relief of equity, requiring clean hands.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral). - C.R.P. 207/2018 & CM APPL. 39456/2018 (stay), CM APPL. 39457/2018 (for condonation of delay)

1. Present civil revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.08.2017, whereby, the learned Trial Court while invoking the powers under Section 151 CPC, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner. Learned Trial court also directed defendant No.4/APMC to remove every illegal encroachment existing within the premises of Azad Pur Mandi within two weeks.

2. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner had also filed an appeal against the impugned order, which was dismissed by the Court of learned ADJ being not maintainable.

3. The facts in brief are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the private respondents and the APMC. The plea of the petitioner is that he has been selling vegetables as Mashakhor in a bye-lane outside Shop No.D-1395, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi.

4. Perusal of the lower court record indicates that the learned Trial Court while considering the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, vide order dated 27.01.2014, had inter alia held as under:-

'Now the area where parties are working is under APMC, a statutory body vested with the administration of the entire vegetable market. Plaintiff has claimed himself to be Mashkhor. Necessarily he must be having some kind of license or permission from APMC to ply his business/trade/operate in Azadpur Subzi Mandi. In the entire plaint it has not been specified whether the plaintiff is license holder by APMC or in any manner authorized to deal at the place in respect of which he has sought permanent injunction against forcible dispossession. No document has been filed by the plaintiff in support of said assertions. Reliance is made on a letter dated 11.03.2013 addressed to the SHO Mahendra Park by Shri S.K. Kholi, Pradhan of Vegetables Traders Association (Regd.). A perusal of the said letter reveals that Rajan Kumar, the plaintiff used to ply his business from the road itself and later on Yogesh Kumar and Lokesh Kkumar had purchased the shop no.D-1395 and dispute arose between them. It is also stated that Kishori Lal and Rajan Kumar are old members of the Association, however, the place belongs to APMC and of the owner of the shop no.D-1395. That being the situation even on the basis of the documents filed by the plaintiff the place where the plaintiff is squatting/occupying is owned either by APMC or defendants no.1 to 3 and there cannot be any injunction against a true owner. No legal right has been prima facie established/enuring in favour of the plaintiff. The perusal of the photographs reveals that the shop of defendants no.1 to 3 is in a manner a corner shop/abutting the side street and which has been occupied by large number of person who are selling vegetables by encroaching the street/road. The said street has been converted into a Bazaar. May be the persons sitting on the road/street and are plying their trade are the person are either authorized by the shopkeepers in and around the said place or they may be their own workers who are putting the vegetables outside the shops. It is quite possible that APMC may have permitted them to do so but it does not justify granting an injunction from the court in absence of the plaintiff having any legal right, title or interest in the place which he is occupying. Plaintiff has urged that his possession is of long duration and settled possession and hence entitles for a stay order against forcible dispossession. In reference thereto it is an admitted fact that street vending/the vegetables market operate only a day hours and once the sun sets the entire market is closed. Thus, at the most of the plaintiff works on daily basis and his possession is not even of long duration/continuous to be called as in settled possession. Needless to say there is no construction carried out by the plaintiff to show any permanent st