Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS DJ 291/23
AJAY PAL Vs. RAM KUMAR AND ORS.
06.06.2023
Present: Mr. Vikramjeet Saini, Advocate for the plaintiff with
plaintiff.
Mr. Rajat Vats, Advocate for the defendant with
defendant no.1.
Joint written statement, reply to application for
temporary injunction and documents with list of documents filed
on behalf of the defendants. Copy supplied.
Arguments heard on application for temporary
injunction.
Having drawn my attention to the photocopies of the
Sale Deeds dated 26.05.2022 and 28.06.2022, counsel for the
plaintiff submits that the mother of the parties Smt. Rajwati who
was the owner of the suit property, namely, bearing no. 118/1A,
Gali no.7, East Moti Bagh, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi110007 had sold
the same to Hari Om Srivastava from whom the plaintiff has
purchased the suit property vide registered Sale Deed. It is
further submitted that the plaintiff does not wish to keep the
defendants in the suit property and they are creating hindrance in
the use of the suit property by the plaintiff.
On the other hand, it is submitted by counsel for the
defendant that the alleged Sale Deed has been got executed by
the plaintiff by playing fraud and in the manner in which the
property has been transferred in favour of the plaintiff itself
creates a doubt about the genuineness of the transaction.
CS DJ 291/23 Page 1 of 3
-- 1 of 3 --
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
submissions made on behalf of the parties.
Admittedly, Smt. Rajwati, the mother of the plaintiff
and the defendants was owner of the suit property. The
defendants are not denying the Sale Deeds, however, contended
that the Sale Deeds have been got executed by the plaintiff in his
favour by playing fraud. In view of the documents produced by
the plaintiff, the prima facie case is established in favour of the
plaintiff.
The plaintiff and the defendants are in possession of
certain portions of the suit property. By way of present
application, the plaintiff is only seeking relief for restraining the
defendants from creating any hindrance in the use of the plaintiff
portion and also for restraining from creating any third party
interest or parting with possession of the portion in possession of
the plaintiff. Therefore, balance of convenience also lies in
favour of the plaintiff.
Certainly, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss if
the injunction is not granted.
For the reasons stated above, the application under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC made on behalf of the plaintiff
is allowed.
The defendants and their family members are
restrained from creating hindrance, obstruction, nuisance in the
physical possession and occupation of the ground floor and first
floor of the suit property and also from parting with possession or
CS DJ 291/23 Page 2 of 3
-- 2 of 3 --
creating any third party interest in the second floor of the suit
property bearing no. 118/1A, Gali no.7, East Moti Bagh, Sarai
Rohilla, Delhi110007, till disposal of the suit.
Nothing mentioned herein above shall tantamount to
be the expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Time sought for filing replication.
Put up for filing of replication, affidavit of
admission/denial of documents and framing of issues on
24.08.2023. Parties shall appear in person.
(Dr. RAKESH KUMAR)
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE -03
(CENTRAL) THC/DELHI /06.06.2023
CS DJ 291/23 Page 3 of 3
-- 3 of 3 --