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Code was moved by the plaintiff through Shri Rajivnayyar, Advocate with a prayer that the suit may be permitted to be withdrawn.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 It was in these circumstances that whilepermitting the suit to be withdrawn by the plaintiff, the learned ADJ observed thatthe claim of the defendant to be in possession appear to be unfounded.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. ( 4 ) I have heard Shri Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner and Shriu. Hazarika, learned Counsel for the respondent. Ms. Indra Jaising, Sr. Advocatewith Mr. H. L. Tikku has also appeared and prayer was made that the case may beadjourned so that they can move an application. He even prayed for an applicationfor being impleaded as a party to be taken on record. This prayer has been opposedand it is the admitted case of the parties that the party represented by Mr. Tikku wasnot a party to the suit, though in the impugned order, the presence of Mr. Tikku hasbeen recorded. It would, thus, be not necessary to give any adjournment or to takeany such application on record. The request of Mr. This prayer has been opposedand it is the admitted case of the parties that the party represented by Mr. Tikku wasnot a party to the suit, though in the impugned order, the presence of Mr. Tikku hasbeen recorded. It would, thus, be not necessary to give any adjournment or to takeany such application on record. The request of Mr. Tikku for permission for takingthe application on record is, therefore, declined. ( 5 ) A dispute has been going on between Mrs. Pamela Manmohan Singh andher brother who has since died and represented by his heirs in respect of thepremises 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 sincekeys of premises are with this Court, possession of the said premises from thismoment 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 Planningfoundation had claimed that it was in possession of the premises in dispute. Sincethe plaintiff was withdrawing the suit without getting the factum of possessionbeing decided in the application, there appears to be no justification for the Trialcourt to make any observation with regard to the possession as to whether theclaim of the. defendant to be in possession was unfounded. The matter is beingcontested by the claimants in the High Court where from, it is stated, the order ofstatus-quo has already been passed. ( 6 ) KEEPING in view all these circumstances, I am of the view that there was nooccasion for the learned ADJ to make an observation with regard to the claim of thedefendant regarding possession to be unfounded. That observation, thus, standsdeleted from the order of the ADJ dated 29. 9. 1993. ( 7 ) CIVIL Revision petition stands disposed of.