TMI Blog1992 (8) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... private individuals. 3. The dispute relates to a house-property in Delhi. A suit for eviction of the appellants from the building is pending in the trial court. According to the case of the respondent No. 1, who is the owner of the property, she had let out the same to one Shri B.K. Pandey who later illegally handed over the possession thereof to the appellant No. 1. According to the further case of the respondent, the portion of the said house-property which is the subject matter of the present case is beyond the purview of the pending suit. The occasion for initiating the present proceeding with respect to this portion arose, it is said, on account of the high-handedness of the appellants who illegally trespassed beyond the area which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. We direct respondents 3 and 4 to remove the grill for access to the backyard in the presence of the police and representatives of the petitioners on Sunday, 23rd February, 1992 at 11.00 a.m. so that the access of the petitioner to the servants quarters is not stopped. 6. Mr. Arun Jaitley, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned judgment on the ground that prayer for issuing a direction against Delhi Administration and Commissioner of Police who were respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was also made. It. has to be appreciated that the present appellants were respondent Nos. 3 and 4 before the High Court; and the High Court has by the impugned order, considered it fit to allow the prayer of the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... she must avail of the remedy under the general law including the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal, are available. It is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant. The jurisdiction is special and extra-ordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly. We, therefore, hold that the High Court was in error in issuing the impugned direction against the appellants by their judgment under appeal. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the writ petition of the respondents filed in the High Court is dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
