JUDGMENT
V.B. Bansal, J.
(1) Mrs. Pamela Manmohan Singh, petitioner has, by way of this revision petition, challenged the order dated 29.9.1993 of learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, in which, an observation has been made with regard to the possession of the premises.
(2) Family Planning Foundation, respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner/defendant with a prayer that the defendant be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff illegally and/or forcibly from the premises No. 198, Golf Links, New Delhi or otherwise interfere with the peaceful physical possession of the plaintiff in respect of the aforesaid premises.
(3) The suit was being contested by the defendant. An application under Order23 Rule I read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code was moved by the plaintiff through Shri RajivNayyar, Advocate with a prayer that the suit may be permitted to be withdrawn.Another prayer was also made for being permitted to deposit the keys of the premises in Court. The application came up before the Adj on 29.9.1993. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the possession was with the plaintiff and he wanted to deposit the keys. This submission was controverter by the learned Counsel for the defendant who claimed that the defendant was in possession of the premises and so did not want the keys of the premises. It was in these circumstances that while permitting the suit to be withdrawn by the plaintiff, the learned Adj observed that the claim of the defendant to be in possession appear to be unfounded. Plaintiff was permitted to withdraw the suit and a direction was issued that the keys of the premises in dispute be deposited with the Registrar.
(4) I have heard Shri Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner and ShriU. Hazarika, learned Counsel for the respondent. Ms. Indra Jaising, Sr. Advocate with Mr. H.L. Tikku has also appeared and prayer was made that the case may be adjourned so that they can move an application. He even prayed for an application for being imp leaded as a party to be taken on record. This prayer has been opposed and it is the admitted case of the parties that the party represented by Mr. Tikku was not a party to the suit, though in the impugned order, the presence of Mr. Tikku has been recorded. It would, thus, be not necessary to give any adjournment or to take any such application on record. The request of Mr. Tikku for permission for taking the application on record is, therefore, declined.
(5) A dispute has been going on between Mrs. Pamela Manmohan Singh and her brother who has since died and represented by his heirs in respect of the premises in dispute. It is also the admitted case of the parties that FAO(OS) 141 /92 is pending. There is an order dated 30.9.1993 by D.B. to the effect that hopefully,the keys must have been handed over to the Registrar of this Court till today since keys of premises are with this Court, possession of the said premises from this moment onwards will be deemed to be of this Court. There has been a claim by Mrs.Pamela Manmohan Singh that she was in possession while Family Planning Foundation had claimed that it was in possession of the premises in dispute. Since the plaintiff was withdrawing the suit without getting the factum of possession being decided in the application, there appears to be no justification for the Trial Court to make any observation with regard to the possession as to whether the claim of the .defendant to be in possession was unfounded. The matter is being contested by the claimants in the High Court where from, it is stated, the order of statuesque has already been passed.
(6) Keeping in view all these circumstances, I am of the view that there was no occasion for the learned Adj to make an observation with regard to the claim of thedefendant regarding possession to be unfounded. That observation, thus, stands deleted from the order of the Adj dated 29.9.1993.
(7) Civil Revision petition stands disposed of.
