JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. Correction application is allowed. 3. Paragraph no. 57 of the order dated 20.09.2019 shall read as under: "57. Faced with the remedy available in law to a true owner to eject an unlawful occupant, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. Vs. Hotel Imperial, reported at 2006(88) DRJ 545 , in eloquent words laid down an enduring statement of law: "28. The expressions `due process of law', `due course of law' and `recourse to law' have been interchangeably used in the decisions referred to above which say that the settled possession of even a person in unlawful possession cannot be disturbed `forcibly' by the true owner taking law in his own hands. All these expressions, however, mean the same thing --ejectment from settled possession can only be had by recourse to a court of law. Clearly, `due process of law' or `due course of law', here, simply mean that a person in settled possession cannot be ejected without a court of law having adjudicated upon his rights qua the true owner. Now, this `due process' or `due course' condition is satisfied the moment the rights of the parties are adjudicated upon by a court of competent jurisdiction. It does not matter who brought the action to court. It could be the owner in an action for enforcement of his right to eject the person in unlawful possession. It could be the person who is sought to be ejected, in an action preventing the owner from ejecting him. Whether the action is for enforcement of a right (recovery of possession) or protection of a right (injunction against dispossession), is not of much consequence. What is important is that in either event it is an action before the court and the court adjudicates upon it. If that is done then, the `bare minimum' requirement of `due process' or `due course' of law would stand satisfied as recourse to law would have been taken. What is important is that in either event it is an action before the court and the court adjudicates upon it. If that is done then, the `bare minimum' requirement of `due process' or `due course' of law would stand satisfied as recourse to law would have been taken. In this context, when a party approaches a court seeking a protective remedy such as an injunction and it fails in setting up a good case, can it then say that the other party must now institute an action in a court of law for enforcing his rights i.e., for taking back something from the first party who holds it unlawfully, and, till such time, the court hearing the injunction action must grant an injunction anyway? I would think not. In any event, the `recourse to law' stipulation stands satisfied when a judicial determination is made with regard to the first party's protective action. Thus, in the present case, the Plaintiff's failure to make out a case for an injunction does not mean that its consequent cessation of user of the said two rooms would have been brought about without recourse to law." 4. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that due to inadvertence, uncorrected copy of the order dated 20.09.2019 was uploaded in the computer system and its certified copy/copies was also issued. 5. Learned counsels for the parties are directed to surrender the certified copy/copies of the order dated 20.09.2019 before the Registry immediately. The certified copy/copies issued earlier is treated as cancelled/nullified. Any other copy/copies issued or otherwise, taken out from the net, also stands cancelled. 6. The office/computer centre is directed to delete the order dated 20.09.2019 immediately which was wrongly uploaded and replace it by incorporating the above sentence. 7. The order containing the errors shall be expunged from the records and the corrected copy shall be placed in the record.