1992 (8) TMI 305

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by and against private individuals. 3. The dispute relates to a house-property in Delhi. A suit for eviction of the appellants from the building is pending in the trial court. According to the case of the respondent No. 1, who is the owner of the property, she had let out the same to one Shri B.K. Pandey who later illegally handed over the possession thereof to the appellant No. 1. According to the further case of the respondent, the portion of the said house-property which is the subject matter of the present case is beyond the purview of the pending suit. The occasion for initiating the present proceeding with respect to this portion arose, it is said, on account of the high-handedness of the appellants who illegally trespassed beyond....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....writ petition. We direct respondents 3 and 4 to remove the grill for access to the backyard in the presence of the police and representatives of the petitioners on Sunday, 23rd February, 1992 at 11.00 a.m. so that the access of the petitioner to the servants quarters is not stopped. 6. Mr. Arun Jaitley, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned judgment on the ground that prayer for issuing a direction against Delhi Administration and Commissioner of Police who were respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was also made. It. has to be appreciated that the present appellants were respondent Nos. 3 and 4 before the High Court; and the High Court has by the impugned order, considered it fit to allow the prayer of t....