The wide inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 C.P.C. to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and the requirement of a higher degree of proof in quasi-criminal proceedings.

MANOJ K. TIWARI, J.

1. There is delay of 249 days in filing the restoration application. Learned counsel for the respondents do not oppose the delay condonation application. Cause shown in the delay Condonation application is sufficient, therefore the same is allowed and the delay in filing restoration application is allowed.

2. For the reasons stated in the restoration application, it is also allowed and appeal is restored to its original number. With the consent of parties, the appeal is heard and decided at admission stage itself.

3. This appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) read with Section 104 C.P.C., against the order passed by learned Trial Court in exercise of powers under Order 39 Rule 2-A read with Section 151 C.P.C., whereby defendant No.2 (appellant herein) was directed to remove the illegal encroachment made by him on the suit property within one month, failing which, he shall be liable for detention in civil prison for15 days.

4. It transpires that the defendant no.2 (appellant herein) was a tenant in a shop, which was part of an old building situated at Gandhi Road, Dehradun. There were as many as nine shops in the said building, which were occupied by different tenants. Nagar Nigam, Dehradun in exercise of powers under Section 308 of Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, passed an order on 22.11.2011 directing the owner of the said building to immediately demolish the building on the ground that it was posing threat to the passersby. Pursuant to the said order, the building was pulled down on 09.12.2011 by a joint team consisting of officials of Public Works Department, Nagar Nigam and Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority.

5. On 09.12.2011 itself, defendant no.2 (appellant herein) filed an appeal under Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, which was registered as Municipal Appeal No. 16 of 2011 in the court of Civil Judge (S.D) Dehradun and on the same date i.e. 09.12.2011, an interim order was passed in the said appeal whereby the demolition order passed by Nagar Nigam was stayed.

6. It is the contention of the plaintiff (respondent herein) that the order of demolition passed by Nagar Nigam was executed before stay order was passed in appellants Municipal Appeal No. 16 of 2011, whereas contention of the defendant no.2 (appellant herein) is that only part of structure of his shop was demolished. Thus, there is no dispute that demolition had been carried out before the appellant could obtain stay order from the court concerned in Municipal Appeal No. 16 of 2011, and despite is only regarding extent of demolition.

7. Thereafter, on 20.12.2011, owner of the building (respondent no.1) filed a suit seeking relief of perpetual prohibitory injunction against the tenants restraining them from interfering with his possession and also restraining them from encroaching upon the suit property, which according to him was open land after demolition of the building. Said suit was registered as O.S. No. 542 of 2011 and on 20.12.2011 itself, learned Trial Court i.e. Civil Judge (S.D) Dehradun granted temporary injunction in favour of respondent no.1. English translation of the order of temporary injunction is as follows:

"Defendant nos. 1 to 12 are restrained from illegally interfering with and encroaching upon the suit property till the next date fixed in the suit."

8. On 23.12.2011, defendant no.2 (appellant herein) filed his written statement alongwith his counter claim. In the counter claim, appellant sought relief of perpetual injunction against the plaintiff, restraining him from interfering with his possession over the property under his tenancy and further not to interfere in the repair work undertaken by him. Another relief which was sought by him was that he may not be evicted from the shop in question without following due process of law. In para-37 of the written statement defendant no.2 (appellant herein), admitted that part of the shop under his tenancy has been demolished due to which size of the shop has