w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


Municipal Corporation of Delhi v/s Om Apartments Private Limited

    Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1986
    Decided On, 06 July 2000
    At, High Court of Delhi
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
    For the Appearing Parties: H.L. Narula, Maheshvar Dayal, Sonia Singhavi, Advocates.


Judgment Text
A.K. SIKRI, J.


(1) THIS civil revision is preferred by MCD against order dated 28. 8. 1995 passed by learned Additional District Judge thereby dismissing the appeal of the petitioner herein preferred against order dated 24. 7. 1982 passed by learned Sub-Judge Delhi in application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 in Suit No. 153 81 filed by the respondent herein thereby confirming the said order. By order dated 24. 7. 1982, learned Sub-Judge restrained the defendant from recovering the property tax in respect of Plot No. 4, Rajindera Place, New Delhi which order was confirmed by the first Appellate Court by impugned order and aggrieved against this order, present civil revision is preferred. The petitioner had issued notice to the respondent under Section 124 of the MCD Act for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1979-80 demanding property tax from the respondent in respect of Plot No. 4, Rajindera Place, New Delhi. Respondent had filed suit against the same challenging the aforesaid demand on the ground that it was not liable to pay any property tax. This suit was decreed by judgment in suit passed by Sh. D. R. Singh, Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi holding that notice under Section 126 proposing to fix the rateable value of the property was illegal and the petitioner herein was restrained from recovering property tax of the property in dispute on the basis of rateable value. It is informed by Counsel for the respondent that First Appeal filed by the petitioner herein in the aforesaid decree was also dismissed.


(2) IN the meantime, petitioner sent demand notice on the basis of the same rateable value fixed earlier and subject-matter of aforesaid proceedings which culminated in the judgment and decree passed by Mr. D. R. Singh, Sub-Judge/ First Class for the years 1980-81 and 1981-82 also. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner filed Suit No. l52 /81 and in that suit, respondent herein also moved an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 seeking restrain order against the petitioner not to recover the property tax. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by Mr. D. R. Singh in the earlier suit, order dated 24. 7. 1982 was passed which was upheld by learned Additional District Judge vide impugned judgment as mentioned above.


(3) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that earlier suit was decreed only on the ground that there was no lease deed executed in favour of respondent herein and respondent was not liable to pay any property tax. His submission is that this is not the correct position in law inasmuch as that the law now stands settled by the judgment of this Court in the case of Vishal Builders Private Ltd. v. Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr. , reported in 22 (1982) DLT 151, and in view thereof, respondent was not entitled to any injunction. On the other hand, it is argued by learned Counsel for the respondent that this is not the only question raised in the suit filed by him or it was the subject-matter of the earlier suit decreed in its favour and there were other issues involved which were decided in favour of the respondent herein thereby decreeing its suit.


(4) IN my view it is not necessary to decide this issue in this revision petition. The suit is of the year 1981, injunction order was granted by the Trial Court on 24. 7. 1982 on the basis of previous judgment between the same parties in respect of the same subject-matter which was even upheld in the appeal. It is only an interim injunction granted in the year 1982. Main suit is yet to be decided. Further a perusal of the order dated 24. 7. 1982 shows that on the same date even issues were framed by the Trial Court. However, the suit could not proceed thereafter because the suit file was summoned in the instant petition. Had the suit proceeded it would have been decided by now as it was filed more than 19 years ago. Moreover, the contentions which are advanced by the petitioner could have been taken into consideration by the Trial Court while deciding the main suit.


(5) IN view of this position, I dispose of this revision petition by directing the Trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously and in any case within a period of six months fr

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
om the date when the parties would appear before the Trial Court and the Trial Court would decide the question about the maintainability of the suit and the liability of the respondent No. 1 to pay the property tax after hearing both the parries. A perusal of the issues shows that infact issues framed cover these aspects as well. (6) PARTIES to appear before the Trial Court on 1. 8. 2000. File of the suit be sent to the Trial Court. No orders as to costs.
O R