JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. The Petitioners - Shri Dev Raj, Shri Shiv Raj and Shri Hans Raj were the Plaintiffs (hereinafter, “Plaintiff Nos. 1-3”) in a suit for permanent injunction in respect of property bearing No. 223, Village Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi (hereinafter, “suit property”). In the said suit, an interim order was passed in the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC on 15th February, 1994 to the following effect: -

“4. I have perused the report of the local commissioner. The local commissioner has categorically stated in his report that he served a notice upon the defendant with regard to his appointment to execute the commission but the defendant deliberately refused to accept the notice. The defendant deliberately and intentionally did not take part in the proceedings held by the local commissioner. It is reported by the local commissioner in his report that the defendant was constructing a wall with the help of the police and the wall was just adjoining the doors of the house of the plaintiffs, which were mostly about to close. After carefully considering the arguments of the plaintiff counsel and in view of the nature of the suit and inasmuch as the documents placed on record by the plaintiff counsel in support of his contention particularly when the plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the owner of the suit property_____house and whereas the defendant has failed to appear despite service and information particularly given by the local commissioner who executed the commission after giving notice to the defendant and since the doors of the house of the plaintiffs are closed on account of raising the wall and whereas it has become difficult for the plaintiffs to enter in the back portion of the house or to open the doors or to tether the cattle. I am of the view that these are the exceptional circumstances where the court must intervene and the Court should not hesitate even to grant the relief which is in the nature of the mandatory form. I accordingly allow the application moved by the plaintiffs as the defendant has not appeared despite knowledge and I order that the walls raised in front of the doors of the house of the plaintiffs be removed in order to facilitate the plaintiffs for their egress and ingress in the premises. In case the hurdle of raising the wall in front of the doors is not removed, the plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable loss. The plaintiffs shall remove the wall, raised by the defendant as alleged in front of the doors of the house and if necessity be the plaintiffs shall take the assistance of the local police. The local police is also directed to get this order implemented. I am of the considered view that since the defendant is absent despite knowledge inasmuch as where the process has not been received in the court issued to the defendant in pursuance to order contained in order 39 rule 3 CPC I in the interest of justice once again order that the defendant be again served with the restraint orders on filing of P.F. R.C. etc. for 28.2.94.”

The Court, by way of an interim mandatory order, had thus directed removal of the wall so as to provide access to the Plaintiffs on the basis that the Plaintiffs were the owners of the property.

2. The said suit, however, came to be finally dismissed by the ld. Trial Court vide judgment/decree dated 24th December, 1999, which reads as under: -

“17. In view of the foregoing discussions and facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the material placed on record, I am of the view that the plaintiff have totally failed to prove that they are the owners and entitled to possess the suit property, falls in the back portion of their houses and also failed to prove that they are entitled to open the doors towards the suit land i.e. the land pertains to khasra No.70/1/1, 70/34 and 70/32 as shown in the site plan not belonging to them.Whereas the wall which was in existence at the time of filing of the suit was demolished in pursuance o