Devinder Gupta ( 1 ) THESE applications on identical terms and facts can conveniently be disposed of by a common order. Counsel for the parties also state that facts are identical and applications may be disposed of by a common order. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS in both the suits claimed to be owners of separate portions of residential property known as F-14. East of Kailash. New. Delhi. Particulars of each of the plaintiffs are as under:- In Suit. No. 1976/1993- ( 3 ) IT is alleged by the plaintiffs that they are residents/occupants of their respective portions for the last one year. They are possessing ration cards, telephone bills, property documents,letter of sanctioned plan and other relevant documents and had purchased the flats from one builder, namely, M/s. Shiva Builders, 79, Kailash Hills, New Delhi by paying full consideration. They claim to have purchased the flats within the last one year of the filing of the suit. It is alleged that at the time of purchase, the builder had shown the letter of sanctioned plan passed by the Corporation and only thereafter the plaintiffs purchased the said flats. It was also assured by the builder that the property was clear from all legal complications and that he had also applied for completion certificate and promised that the same would be delivered after the expiry of 60 days from the filing of the application for completion certificate and in case there is no response from the Corporation, within the period, the completion certificate will be deemed to have been given. In the present case it so happened. It is plaintiffs case that they neither received any show cause notice nor any information, any demolition order and/or sealing order passed by the Corporation or any other official of the Corporation either by registered post or otherwise and all of a sudden on 28th August. 1993 at about 4. 00 p. m. officials of the defendants, claiming themselves to be the Zonal Engineer (Buildings) South Zone. Junior Engineer (Buildings) South Zone with 10/15 labourers possessing big hammers, iron rods. and other demolition implements etc. came to the spot and without waiting for a single minute started demolishing balconies of ground floor and second floor. 1993 at about 4. 00 p. m. officials of the defendants, claiming themselves to be the Zonal Engineer (Buildings) South Zone. Junior Engineer (Buildings) South Zone with 10/15 labourers possessing big hammers, iron rods. and other demolition implements etc. came to the spot and without waiting for a single minute started demolishing balconies of ground floor and second floor. Some ofthe plaintiffs, who were present intervened and insisted for orders of demolition but nothing was shown and all the time it was told that they were executing the orders passed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The matter was reported to the police. Considerable damage was caused to the property. On 29th August. 1993. officials again came at 2. 30 p. m. along with buldozer and buldozed one drawing room at the ground floor, two drawings rooms at the second floor and depsite request no demolition order was shown to any of the residents or police officials. It is also claimed that from enquiry it revealed that there are excess coverage in the building which was never disclosed by the builders to them but now the respective owners of their own were willing to demolish the excess coverage and if at all the deviations are compundable they are willing to do so. Sufficient and reasonable time be given to them. In this background, a decree is claimed in the suit for injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing any part of the property No. F-14. East of Kailash. New Delhi ( 4 ) ON 30th August. 1993. in suit No. 1976/93. notice was issued. Ex parte order of injunction against demolition of the portions in question was granted. Similar orders were passed in the other suit (S. No. 1977/93) on 1st Setember. 1993. directing status quo to be maintained. Defendants have now put in appearnce and filed their reply objecting to the continuance of the order of injunction. ( 5 ) THE defendants case is that the suit is nothing but gross abuse of the process of law. Plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands and | suppressed material facts. The owners/builders of the property, namely, Darvesh Radhey Shyam Aggarwal and Nikhilesh Radhey Shyam Aggarwal who had got the building plans sanctioned had filed an appeal before the MCD Tribunal against action for demolition, which was dismissed. Plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands and | suppressed material facts. The owners/builders of the property, namely, Darvesh Radhey Shyam Aggarwal and Nikhilesh Radhey Shyam Aggarwal who had got the building plans sanctioned had filed an appeal before the MCD Tribunal against action for demolition, which was dismissed. Writ petition was also preferred in this Court, which was also dismissed on 3rd September, 1993. Plaintiff Vinod Kumar had filed a suit in respect of the same property and others had also filed suit with respect to same property, which was penidng before a Subordinate Judge, Delhi. The F-Block, East of Kailash Residents Welfare Association has. also filed a Civil Writ bearing No. 3649/92. Contempt of Court Petition was also preferred therein, in which it was alleged by the Association that Municipal Corporation of Delhi had not taken any action in respect of the property in question. A Division Bench of this Court on 27th August, 1993 directed the Municipal Corporation of delhi to disconnect electricity and water connections in respect of the property. These facts were not disclosed in the case due to which injunction deserves to be vacated. It is claimed that plaintiffs are not entitled to injunction, as prayed for. Their occupation is unauthorised and illegal. It is stated that no completion certificate had been issued in respect of the suit premises and any transaction entered into by the plaintiffs with the building cannot affect the rights of the defendants to take action against the unauthorised construction for which due notice was given to the persons, who had got the building plans sanctioned. Such notices were issued under Sections 343. 344 and 345a of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act on the owners/builders, in whose name the building plans were sanctioned and after affording them due and reasonable opportunity of being heard, demolition and sealing orders were passed, which became final and have to be implemented These are also required to be implemented in terms of the orders passed by this Court in the contempt proceedings ( 6 ) AT the time of filing of the suit. plaintiffs had not filed or placed on record documents in support of their version. It is now contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that since suit. in the facts and circumstances of the case. plaintiffs had not filed or placed on record documents in support of their version. It is now contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that since suit. in the facts and circumstances of the case. had to be preferred in an emergent situation, it was not possible for the plaintiffs to have placed on record documents. Documents according to them. which ever were in their possession and power have now been placed on record. The documents which are not placed on record of Suit No. 1976/93 only are the photo copies of ration card in favour of plaintiffs No. 1. 4 and 5 (in suit No. 1976/93 ). Agreement to sell in favour of plaintiff No. 5. Possession letter in favour of plaintiff No. 5 and a will in favour of plaintiff No. 5. There are copies of General Power of Attorneys also placed on record. There are not other documents produced on record by the plaintiffs except one copy of telephone sanctioned letter of telephone connection and a copy of complaint submitted to the Commissioner and site plan of the premises. ( 7 ) FROM the contents of the copy of agreement to sell in favour of plaintiff No. 5, it may be noticed that one Angoori Devi was the owner. On her death, property was mutated in favour of Mr. Devesh Radhey Shyam Aggarwal and Mr. Nikhlesh Radhey Shyam Aggarwal. It is recited that though agreement to sell dated 20th April, 1992, Rohit Jain and Sunil Gupta purchased the property. Admittedly, there is no regular sale deed in favour of Rohit Jain and Sunilgupta, who are alleged to have purchased the property on the basis of an agrement to sell dated 20th April, 1992. These two so called purchasers are stated to be partners carrying on the business of M/s. Shiva Builders. Copy of general power of attorney placed on record is by Mr. Devesh Radhey Shyam Aggarwal and Mr. Nikhlesh Radhey Shyam Aggarwal, appointing Mr. Arji Singh son of Mr. Bagh Singh and Mrs. Bhajan Kaur wife of Mr. R. G. Singh, as attorney with respect to a part of the property, namely, flat on the western side of the first floor. From the documents on record, as placed by the plaintiff, it became clear that the recorded owner of the property was Mrs. Angoori Devi, who was allotted plotno. Bagh Singh and Mrs. Bhajan Kaur wife of Mr. R. G. Singh, as attorney with respect to a part of the property, namely, flat on the western side of the first floor. From the documents on record, as placed by the plaintiff, it became clear that the recorded owner of the property was Mrs. Angoori Devi, who was allotted plotno. 14, Block-F, in the lay out plan of East of Kailash, New Delhi by the President of India through perpetual lease on 17th March. 1978. On her death property is stated to have been mutated in favour of Mr. Devesh Radhey Shyam Aggarwal and Mr. Nikhlesh Radhey Shyam Aggarwal. Confirmation of mutation was conveyed through letter dated 3rd September. 1987 to Mr. Devesh Radhey Shyam Aggarwal and Mr. NikhleshRadhey Shyam Aggarwal. The plaintiffs in both the suits claim to have acquired the rights, title and interest in various portions of the property rom M/ s. Shiva Builders, whose partners are Rohit Jain and Sunil Gupta. Such rights are alleged to have been acquired between 15th September. 1992 and till the date of insitution of suit. Plaintiffs have neither produced on record the alleged sanctioned building plan or the alleged completiton certificate, either in favour of the partners of Shiva Builders or in favour of plaintiffs or owners. There admittedly is no transfer of title through any registered document. Partners of Shiva Builders are stated to have acquired their title also on the basis of power of attorney The plaintiffs in both the suit also claim to have acquired title on the basis of same agreement to sell from September. 1992 to August. 1993. ( 8 ) FROM the material on record produced on behalf of the defendants, it is clear that the order of sealing was passed towards the beginning of 1992. which was set aside on appeal on 19th October. 1992. Demolition order which had also been issued on 17th September, 1992 was treated as a show cause notice. On 28th October, 1992 fresh order of demolition was passed. Fresh sealing order passed on 20th November. 1992 was affirmed in appeal by the Tribunal on 24th February. 1993. Mr. Devesh Radhey Shyam Aggarwal challenged the order by filing petition (CM (M ). On 28th October, 1992 fresh order of demolition was passed. Fresh sealing order passed on 20th November. 1992 was affirmed in appeal by the Tribunal on 24th February. 1993. Mr. Devesh Radhey Shyam Aggarwal challenged the order by filing petition (CM (M ). No. 427/92) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in this Court against the orders of the Appellate Tribunal and also prayed for quashing of the sealing order dated 19th November, 1992. The said petition was disposed of on 23rd April, 1993. , it was noticed in the said order, while dismissing the petition, that such order of demolition dated 19th September. 1992 was set aside in terms of order made by the Tribunal. On 19th October, 1993 after remand second order of sealing had been made on 20th November, 1992 and appeal in respect therof had also been dismissed ; by the Tribunal on 24th February, 1993. ( 9 ) THE constructed portion of the property are stated to have been sold by builders namely, M/s. Shiva Builders. The plaintiff will be bound by any orders passed against the owner of the property, from whom they claim to have acquired the alleged title in the property. In case contention of plaintiffs is accepted that they had acquired title in the property on the basis of power of attorney, Municipal Corporation of Delhi cannot take any action for demolition or sealing without fresh notice to them irrespective of the fact that such demolition or sealing orders earlier were validly served and the order of demolition and sealing had otherwise become final against the owner of the property, such order of demolition and sealing can never be implemented. Any person acquiring title from the owner will be bound by the orders of demolition and sealing, whenever passed against the owner of the property. Admittedly, the plaintiffs were not the alleged transferees on the date when construction was carried out. ( 10 ) ACTION was initiated by the authorities for demolition before the plaintiffs agreed to acquire title. Due to this reason, there is no need to go into the other questions now raised by the defendants during the course of arguments. Suffice It to say that the filing of suit by the plaintiffs itself is gross abuse of the process of law. Due to this reason, there is no need to go into the other questions now raised by the defendants during the course of arguments. Suffice It to say that the filing of suit by the plaintiffs itself is gross abuse of the process of law. Plaintiffs came to the court, obtained order of injunction on insufficient grounds without disclosing material facts. No document was produced on record. Orders were obtained on mere statement that no notice had been served upon them. It was not stated by them that such a notice had already been served upon their predecessors It was incumbent and necessary for the plaintiffs to make such a statement and also to state about the the proceedings for demolition. It is a Fundamental principle of law that a person acquiring title must enquire about the title of his predecessor. In case plaintiffs had seen the order of sanction of plan, it was incumbent on them to have the same placed on record. Since nothing has been placed on record till date. the presumption will go against the plaintiffs that construction is unauthorised. There is absolutely no cause of action for grant of injunction. There is also no question of balance of convenience for continuation of the injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, who have acquired property knowing fully well about their rights, when proceedings were already in progress in the action taken by Municipal Corporation of Delhi against the owners of the property. There is also no question of any irreparable loss or injury in such like case. It is a fit case in which application for grant of injunction deserves to be dismissed and ex parte order of injunction deserves to be vacated. Accordingly, applications are dismissed and ex parte order of injunction is vacated.