The case at hand involved a dispute over the rights of a watchman over some property in the premises of a natural therapy center.
The watchman had been given the property to reside in while he was employed by the center. He staked claim to this property after he was dismissed from service.
He had sought a permanent injunction to restrain the center from interfering with his possession of the said premises.
While this legal case was pending, the watchman passed away and his legal heirs continued the litigation.
The matter reached the Supreme Court after the legal heirs challenged a High Court ruling that favoured the center.
This appeal in Supreme Court was withdrawn by the legal heirs in 2013.
Three years later, the legal heirs moved the High Court again with a review application, which was dismissed for non-prosecution.
In 2017 and 2018 and early 2019, three more applications were filed to restore the review plea. All three applications were dismissed by the High Court for non-prosecution.
However, in late 2019, one more such application was filed, which was allowed with costs of ₹15,000.
Source: Barandbench
