Final Order 22

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. UPASANA SATIJA
SCJ-Cum-RC (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ 1339/23
CNR No. DLCT03-003692-2023
IN THE MATTER OF
Smt. Sushma
W/o Sh. Raj Karan Chauhan
R/o J-52, Katra Khema,
Kishanganj, Padam Nagar,
North Delhi, Delhi-110007 .... Plaintiff
Versus
Suraj
R/o J-51, Katra Khema
Kishanganj, Padam Nagar,
North Delhi, Delhi-110007 .… Defendant
Date of Institution : 07.07.2023
Date of Reserving the Judgment : 25.09.2025
Date of Decision : 14.10.2025
Decision : Suit Dismissed
Suit for Permanent & Mandatory Injunction
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1. Present suit for permanent injunction is filed by Smt.
Sushma (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiff’) against Suraj
(hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant’).
PLEADINGS
Brief Facts pleaded in the plaint
2.1. Plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of
J-52, Katra Khema, Kishanganj, Padam Nagar, Delhi-110007
CS No. 1339/2023 Sushma Vs. Suraj Page no. 1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
(hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’). The Defendant claims
to be the owner and in possession of House at J-51, Katra
Khema, Kishanganj, Padam Nagar, Delhi-110007 adjoining the
Plaintiff's house. Defendant is a neighbor of Plaintiff who claims
to have recently purchased the adjoining property of total 18 sq-
yards/Gaz. The defendant has also illegally started
constructing/encroachment a door in his wall measuring 5 feet
encroaching towards the Plaintiff's side for entry and exit of
Plaintiff's house whereas the entrance for the plot owned by the
Defendant is registered on 5 feet gali, West direction.
2.2. The Defendant has committed trespass on the suit
property and illegally constructed a gate/door on the suit property
thereby encroaching and grabbing part of the Plaintiff's rightful
land/plot area. When the Plaintiff peacefully approached the
Defendant about the illegal construction and the subsequent
encroachment, the Defendant got angry and started a fight with
the Plaintiff.
2.3. On 06.06.2023 the Plaintiff subsequently registered
a complaint against the Defendant for threatening, abusing,
criminally intimidating and harassing him. The Defendant has
encroached upon the Plaintiff's property measuring 5 feet
horizontally to Plaintiff's knowledge. Hence, the plaintiff has
filed the present suit against the defendant praying for following
reliefs:
(i) Decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to
demolish/remove the illegal construction raised i.e. the gate from
the suit property i.e. plaintiff property.
CS No. 1339/2023 Sushma Vs. Suraj Page no. 2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
(ii) Decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the
defendant, from raising any unauthorized or illegal construction
and directing him to close to unauthorized encroachment and that
the gate raised by defendant be demolished, further also restrain
the defendant from demolishing or mutilating any part of
plaintiff's property.
(iii) Compensation order amounting to as the Hon'ble court
may deem appropriate as cost for loss of property, harassment
and undue hardship to the plaintiff.
(iv) Litigation cost.
3. Summons for settlement of issues was issued to the
defendant. Vide order dated 03.02.2024, the defendant was
proceeded ex-parte and the matter was listed for ex-parte PE.
EVIDENCE
Plaintiffs’ Evidence
4. Plaintiff examined herself as PW-1. She tendered his
evidence by way of affidavit which was exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A
which bears her signatures at point A and B. She relied upon the
following documents:
i) Ex.PW1/1 (OSR) is copy of Aadhar Card of the deponent.
ii) Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) is copy of Ration Card of the deponent.
iii) Ex.PW1/3 (OSR) is copy of Electricity Bill.
iv) Ex.PW1/4 is photograph of the house of the deponent.
v) Ex.PW1/5 is photograph of the suit property.
vi) Ex.PW1/6 is photograph of property of the defendant.
vii) Mark A is the copy of complaint made to SHO PS Pratap
Nagar.
CS No. 1339/2023 Sushma Vs. Suraj Page no. 3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
viii) Mark B is the copy of complaint made to the Executive
Engineer Building, Kashmere Gate dated 07.06.2023.
5. Entire record is perused.
FINDINGS
6. Although no written statement was filed by the
defendant, however, even in an ex parte matter, the plaintiff is
required to prove her case by cogent evidence. Mere absence of
the defendant does not entitle the plaintiff to a decree as a matter
of course. To be entitled to the reliefs claimed, plaintiff is
required to establish existence of right in her favour and the
violation or threat of violation of such right by the defendant.
7. The plaintiff claims to be the owner and in
possession of property bearing no. J-52, Katra Khema,
Kishanganj, Padam Nagar, Delhi-110007 and alleges that the
defendant, who owns the adjoining property, has illegally
constructed a door in the wall encroaching towards the plaintiff’s
side. It is further alleged that the defendant has an existing
entrance opening towards the 5 ft. wide gali on the western side
and, therefore, had no right to open another door towards the
plaintiff’s property.
8. To prove ownership and possession, the plaintiff has
filed copies of her Aadhaar card, electricity bill and ration card.
Certain photographs have also been filed. A site plan has been
placed on record, but the same has not been proved in evidence.
CS No. 1339/2023 Sushma Vs. Suraj Page no. 4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
9. The plaintiff has not filed any document of title to
show ownership of the suit property. However, to establish
possession, the plaintiff has filed documents such as Aadhaar
card, electricity bill and ration card, which reflect her address as
that of the suit property. These documents, though not documents
of title, are sufficient to show her settled possession over the suit
premises, particularly in absence of any rebuttal from the
defendant. The defendant, having chosen not to contest the suit,
has not led any evidence to dispute the plaintiff’s possession and
the same, therefore, stands prima facie established.
10. As regards the allegation of encroachment or illegal
opening of a door in the wall, the plaintiff has failed to lead
cogent and specific evidence. The photographs placed on record
are vague and do not clearly depict the alleged door or disputed
wall. The site plan filed has not been proved or relied upon in
evidence. Even otherwise, the site plan does not indicate the
exact location of alleged door. Consequently, the averments of
encroachment and illegal opening of door remain
unsubstantiated.
CONCLUSION
11. In view of the above, it is concluded that while
plaintiff’s possession over suit property stands prima facie
established, she has failed to prove the alleged encroachment.
Accordingly, no ground is made out for grant of mandatory or
permanent injunction. The suit of the plaintiff is, therefore,
dismissed.
CS No. 1339/2023 Sushma Vs. Suraj Page no. 5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
12. No order as to costs.
13. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
14. File be consigned to the Record Room as per rules.
Announced in open Court
On this 14th day of October, 2025
This Judgment contains 6 pages
and each page is signed by me.
(UPASANA SATIJA)
SCJ-cum-RC, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi
CS No. 1339/2023 Sushma Vs. Suraj Page no. 6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --