Pratibha Rani JUDGMENT
Pratibha Rani, J.
1. The appellant No. 1, who is present in person, requests for an adjournment on the ground that he wants to change his counsel. The appellants are enjoying an ex-parte interim stay granted in their favour on 20th May, 2016 against their dispossession from the suit property.
2. On 29th August, 2016 the appellants requested for a date on the ground that the counsel was suffering from fever. This Court passed the following order:-
"1. Only for the reason that counsel for the appellants is said to be down with fever, therefore, this case is adjourned, otherwise prima facie I find no merits in the appeal where appellants/defendants who are son and daughter-in-law of the respondents/plaintiffs have been evicted from the suit premises.
2. List on 7th September, 2016."
3. On 7th September, 2016 after hearing respondent No. 2, mother of the appellant No. 1, with the consent of the parties, appellant No. 1 Sachin was directed to pay ` 3500/- per month to the respondents/parents with effect from September, 2016. Appellant No. 1 Sachin undertook to comply with this obligation. He also agreed not to stop his elder brother Sanjay (Defendant No. 1) from using the second floor of the property. Matter was also referred to the mediation. Mediation report dated 17th October, 2016 received with the report that it was 'Non-Starter'.
4. Today appellant No. 1 Sachin was asked as to whether he has complied with the order dated 7th September, 2016 by making payment to his parents, he simply stated that he has no money to pay and sought time to change his counsel. The appellant No. 1 was again asked whether he is ready to comply with the directions dated 7th September, 2016 as in that case he can be given time to make the payment to his parents. The appellant No. 1 has refused to make any payment to his parents.
5. When the mediation failed on 17th October, 2016, if the appellants intended to change their counsel, nothing prevented them from doing so. The appellants cannot be permitted to abuse the process of law by seeking adjournment on one pretext or the others especially when they are enjoying ad-interim stay against their dispossession from this Court.
6. Heard.
7. The Regular Second Appeal No. 136/2016 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 impugns the concurrent judgment of the Court below i.e. of the trial Court dated 16th March, 2015 and of the First Appellate Court dated 13th January, 2016 whereby Civil Suit No. 49/14 filed on 11th February, 2014 by the parents of the appellants (respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein) against their two sons and their wives seeking decree of permanent and mandatory injunction has been decreed.
8. The suit was filed by respondent No. 1, Sh.Jhabbu Lal and respondent No. 2, Smt. Raj Devi pleading that they are senior citizens residing on ground floor in House No. RZ-H-81, Gali No. 4, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi-110041 and construction on the said plot has been raised upto second floor. Their elder son Sanjay along with his wife Mamta was permitted to live on the second floor whereas the younger son Sachin along with his wife Neetu was permitted to live on the first floor of the said property out of love and affection for their sons. The parents of the appellant No. 1 claimed themselves to be owner of the suit property which was self acquired. It was further pleaded by the parents of the appellants that their sons as well their wives made the life hell for them so much so that they were not even paying the electricity bills. The old parents were constrained to make various complaints to the police and also issued public notice on 5th January, 2007 and 17th May, 2012 disowning their sons and debarring them from their self acquired property. It was also pleaded that said ........