IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6869-6871 OF 2009 [arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 21381-21383 of 2008]

M/S SUNSAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

  SAURAV AGARWAL & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTs

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Two orders have been impugned in this appeal,  

one dated 8th July, 2008 and the other 29th July, 2008,  

both emanating from miscellaneous applications filed by  

the respondent who was the petitioner in Writ Petition  

(C) No. 9247 of 2008 which is still pending in the High  

Court.  When this matter came up before the Division  

Bench of the High Court on 8th July, 2008 notice was  

issued to the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and was accepted  

by the Additional Standing Counsel and it was further  

directed that the requisite for the issue of notice to  

respondent Nos. 2 and 4 be filed on the following day.  

Despite  the  fact  that  respondent  No.  4  who  is  the  

appellant before us had not been served, the Division  

Bench proceeded to make some startling observation in  

its  order  dated  8th July,  2008,  and  issued  certain

directions which to our mind were even beyond the scope  

of the prayer in the writ petition:-

“House grabbing is serious offence and  it amounts to criminal offence and we take  serious note of the same.  Therefore, the  Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bhubaneshwar,  is directed to take appropriate action under  the  law  and  enquire  the  delivery  of  possession of the above office/rooms to the  petitioners and submit a report before this  Court by the next date.

The petitioner is directed to approach  the Deputy Police Commissioner, Bhubaneshwar  along with an application and on receipt of  the  said  application,  the  Deputy  Commissioner  of  Police  shall  get  it  registered as a criminal case at the proper  Police Station.”  

On 29th July, 2008, the Court went yet further  

and modified the order  dated 08th July, 2008:-

“The interim order passed earlier is  modified to the above extent.  Except taking  over  possession  and  the  necessary  applicability of the law in that respect, no  other coercive action shall be taken against  opposite party No. 4 till a prima facie case  is made out against them on the basis of  credible evidence.   

The personal appearance of the Deputy  Commissioner  of  Police,  Bhubaneshwar  is  dispensed with until further orders.”

It is the case of the appellant that pursuant to  

the orders aforesaid the possession was taken from the  

subsequent  vendee  of  the  flat  and  is  now  with  the  

police.   The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  has  

first and foremost argued that the interim order dated  

8th July,  2008  was  without  notice  to  the  appellant

before us and after making some general observations  

with regard to house grabbing being a serious offence  

etc.  some  observations  had  been  made  against  the  

appellant and by the subsequent order dated 29th July,  

2008, an even more harsher order with respect to the  

taking of possession had been passed.

After  hearing  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties, we are of the opinion that both the orders  

cannot be sustained inasmuch as they have been issued  

to a private party in a writ petition and had been made  

without notice to respondent No. 4 who is appellant  

before us.  We are also of the opinion that such orders  

in a writ petition are perhaps uncalled for and should  

be a matter of decision by a Criminal Court or Civil  

Court.  We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside  

the aforesaid orders with no orders as to costs.

The High Court will proceed on its own on merits  

uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove.

    ..................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ..................J           [R.M. LODHA]

NEW DELHI OCTOBER 06, 2009.