The court established that inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC can be exercised to restore possession when parties have been wrongfully dispossessed, irrespective of the formal dismissal of related suits.

JUDGMENT

1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 read with Order 42 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as `CPC') against the impugned judgment dated 06.05.2019 whereby the appeal of the Appellants against the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2018 in Suit No. 607578/2016 has been dismissed.

2. Brief and relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the appeal are that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein/Plaintiffs in the Suit, being the sons of Late Shri Shankar Lal and Smt. Veena Devi, instituted a Suit for permanent injunction against their parents. Late Shri Shankar Lal was Defendant No. 1 and Smt. Veena Devi was Defendant No. 2. The suit was filed to restrain the Defendants from dispossessing them from shop No. 5308, Shora Kothi, Paharganj, New Delhi (suit property). It was alleged that (a) the Plaintiffs were carrying out their business from the suit property at the time of institution of the suit; (b) Plaintiff No. 1 was carrying on business of catering for the last 12 years and his goods and other catering material were lying in the suit property; (c) Plaintiff No. 2 was carrying on business of tent/decorators and furniture for about 12 years and his tent material, utensils etc. were lying in the suit property; (d) Plaintiff No. 3 was carrying on business of sweets for the last 5 years and his articles were lying in the suit property; (e) Defendant No. 1 was mentally disturbed and the Plaintiffs were taking care of him including his treatment at various hospitals; (f) Plaintiffs were in settled possession of the suit property and the Defendants were trying to dispossess the Plaintiffs; (g) Defendant No. 2 was the owner of the suit property; (h) Defendant No. 1 threatened to oust the Plaintiffs from the suit property on 21.08.2005 and again on 22.08.2005, which gave rise to cause of action for filing the suit for permanent injunction. Together with the Plaint, the Plaintiffs also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC.

3. Written statement was filed by the Defendants alleging (a) the suit was a gross abuse of the process of law; (b) Plaintiffs concealed material facts from the Court; (c) Neither of the Plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property; (d) Allegation that Defendant No.1 was mentally disturbed was false, defamatory and derogatory; (e) Defendant No. 1 had disowned the three sons by a notice, way back in January, 1994; (f) As none of the Plaintiffs were in possession on the date of institution of the suit, the suit was not maintainable; (g) On 15.08.2005 suit property was leased to one Radhey Shyam and this triggered the Plaintiffs coming to the house of the Defendants and threatening the Defendants, which led to a Police Complaint by the Defendants. Replication was filed to the Written Statement by the Plaintiffs.

4. On 30.08.2005, Learned Trial Court appointed a Local Commissioner to ascertain the factum of the possession of the suit property. On 03.09.2005 a Report was rendered by the Local Commissioner as per which the suit property was in possession of Defendant No. 1/Shri Shankar Lal. Based on the Report and relying on the judgments on the issue, learned Trial Court vide order dated 10.09.2005 dismissed the application for temporary injunction.

5. On 06.02.2006, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP

2. Relief."

6. During the pendency