B.C. Patel, C.J.

1. This letters patent appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order dated 6.8.2004 in WP 13108/2004. The writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking a restraint order against the respondent DDA from forcibly taking action and vacant physical possession of land stated to be known as Maya Devi Trust Pal Nursery behind Nirankari Mandir, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi, admeasuring 5 bighas.

2. The learned Single Judge declined to entertain this petition in view of an earlier order passed on 27.7.2004 in Writ Petition 12243/2004 on the ground that in case the appellant alleges that he has been dispossessed contrary to any interim orders of a competent Court, the remedy of the appellant is by filing contempt proceedings.

3. In order to appreciate the controversy, the order in Writ Petition 12243/2004 dated 27.7.2004 would have to be considered. That writ petition was filed by the appellant herein on the ground that the DDA had requisitioned police force on 23.7.2004 for demolition/clearance/sealing operations in respect of encroachments including that of the appellant. The learned Single Judge found the petition wholly frivolous petition. This conclusion was arrived at on the basis of certain facts in respect of the past history of litigation initiated by the appellant.

4. The appellant had filed a suit before the learned Additional District Judge for permanent injunction against the DDA from demolishing the suit property. An application under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking interim restraint orders from taking any demolition action qua the property was filed along with the Suit. Another Suit was filed for declaration that the appellant is the owner of the property. Both the Suits were subsequently consolidated.

5. In view of the fact that the appellant failed to obtain any interim relief in the first Suit, the appellant filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being CM(M) 1013/2003. The learned Single Judge of this Court issued notice in the petition on 19.12.2003. A notice was also issued on an application for interim relief being CM 2812/2003 where the following order was passed:

CM 2182/2003 (for stay)

Notice for the date fixed. There shall be stay of demolition till the disposal of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, CPC.

6. The aforesaid order was extended from time-to-time and the CM(M) was still pending. In the meantime, the Suit filed by the appellant was dismissed for default on 8.7.2004. The appellant moved an application for restoration of the Suit but the same was still pending.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant strongly relies upon the observations made in the order dated 27.7.2004 in Writ Petition (Civil) 12243/2004 to contend that the appellant had an interim protection of the order in his favour.

8. Since this issue has been raised and forms the bedrock of the claim of the appellant in the present appeal, we have to consider this controversy on merit.

9. It is stated today in Court by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the application for restoration of the suit was subsequently allowed but at the relevant stage of admission, was still pending consideration. In our considered view, when a suit is dismissed for non-prosecution, all the proceedings arising out of the Suit filed including any application for interim relief would automatically stand terminated till such time as the Suit is restored. It is not necessary for us to enter into the controversy whether the interim orders would automatically stand revived or not as there may be change of circumstances which were required to be taken into consideration by the Court of the competent jurisdiction while granting the prayer for restoration.

10. The appellant herein was fully aware that the Suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. The interim orders passed by the High Court on 19.12.2003 in CM (M) 1013/2003 were limited till the disposal of the application in the Suit under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In view of the conditional nature of the order passed, the order would automatically come to an end with the dismissal of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2. This application was dismissed as the proceedings came to an end on dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution on 8.7.2004.

11. Learned Counsel submitted that the order made by the learned Single Judge in CM (M) 1013/2003 staying the demolition till the disposal of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 would continue to apply even after dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution, since the application was not decided. It is further contended that this order was made by the High Court and only High Court can set aside or modify that order. When the order is conditional, we fail to appreciate this argument. If the litigant is not vigilant about the proceedings, he could only blame himself for the consequences of the termination of the proceedings by default. The High Court had only protected the appellant for a limited period which was till the disposal of the application. Therefore, with the dismissal of the suit, automatically the application also stand dismissed and the order would not survive and order cannot continue in vacuum.

12. A pointed query was posed to learned Counsel for the appellant about the basis of the claim to the property and whether the appellant claimed rights in the property as an owner, lessee or licensee. Learned Counsel for the appellant conceded that there was no title vested in the appellant but on account of the fact that the appellant had occupied the property, the appellant was claiming rights over the same. Be that as it may, it is for the Civil Court to determine the rights of the appellant. Suffice it to say that in view of the absence of any interim orders after dismissal of the suit till at least its restoration, any action taken by the respondent cannot be said to be in breach of any order. No separate petition as filed was required to be entertained.

13. In our considered view, the learned Single Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that there was no need to entertain the petition. In fact, as noticed in the earlier order dated 27.7.2004 in WP 12243/2004 the appellant is only indulging in multifarious proceedings to prevent the respondent in taking action in accordance with law.

14. We find no merit in the appeal.

15. Dismissed.