V.B.Bansal - (1.)Mrs. Pamela Manmohan Singh, petitioner has, by wayof this revision petition, challenged the order dated 29.9.1993 of learned AdditionalDistrict Judge, Delhi, in which, an observation has been made with regard to thepossession of the premises.
(2.)Family Planning Foundation, respondent had filed a suit for permanentinjunction against the petitioner/defendant with a prayer that the defendant berestrained from dispossessing the plaintiff illegally and/or forcibly from thepremises No. 198, Golf Links, New Delhi or otherwise interfere with the peacefulphysical 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Code was moved by the plaintiff through Shri RajivNayyar, Advocate with a prayer that the suit may be permitted to be withdrawn.Another prayer was also made for being permitted to deposit the keys of thepremises in Court. The application came up before the ADJ on 29.9.1993. It wasclaimed by the plaintiff that the possession was with the plaintiff and he wanted todeposit the keys. This submission was controverted by the learned Counsel for thedefendant who claimed that the defendant was in possession of the premises andso did not want the keys of the premises. It was in these circumstances that whilepermitting the suit to be withdrawn by the plaintiff, the learned ADJ observed thatthe claim of the defendant to be in possession appear to be unfounded. Plaintiff waspermitted to withdraw the suit and a direction was issued that the keys of thepremises in dispute be deposited with the Registrar.