FAO No.210/2010 Page 1 of 2 UNREPORTABLE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No.210/2010 Date of Decision: May 21, 2010 DARSHAN SINGH ..... Appellant through Mr. J.K.Jain, Advocate versus SAROOP LAL SEHRAWAT & ORS ..... Respondents through None CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the ‘Digest’? No REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been preferred against the order of Additional District Judge, Shri Kamlesh Kumar dated January 25, 2010. By virtue of the said order, defendant No.1 has been restrained from selling, transferring, alienating, disposing of or creating any third party interest in the suit property or parting with possession of the same till the disposal of the suit. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant who was defendant No.1 in the trial Court that the trial Court ought not to have passed the impugned order, as defendant No.1 had himself made a statement before the trial Court on February 05, 2007 stating that he would not create any third party interest and would also not part with FAO No.210/2010 Page 2 of 2 the possession of the suit property. It is further submitted that the trial Court even recorded this fact in the impugned order and yet not only passed the order restraining defendant No.1 from creating third party interest in the suit property or parting with the possession of the same but also made observations against defendant No.1 even when the parties have yet to go for trial. Having regard to the fact that the appellant through his counsel is even now saying that he will not create any third party interest in the suit property nor shall part with the possession of the same, the impugned order dated January 25, 2010 cannot be faulted. As regards the observations stated to have been made against the appellant, the trial Court in paragraph-9 of the impugned order has itself said that, “nothing contained hereinabove, however, shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.” In view of what is stated in paragraph-9, I am of the view that the appellant has been sufficiently safeguarded against any observation made in the impugned order. In any case, it is well understood that any interim order made during the trial of the suit, be it under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under any other provision, does not govern the rights of the parties. It is the final order passed in the suit which shall ultimately determine their rights. The appeal has no merit. The same is dismissed. REKHA SHARMA, J. MAY 21, 2010 ka