Interim Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 23CS SCJ2284/23
Neeraj Sharma Vs. Shashi Bala
24.04.2025
Present: None for plaintiff.
Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, Ld. LAC for the defendant.
Matter is pending at the stage of arguments on
application u/o 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. It is submitted by Ld. LAC
for the defendant that she does not wish to file any written reply
to the same. It is further submitted that the present application is
false and frivolous and be disposed of accordingly.
Arguments heard on the application u/o 39 Rule 1
and 2 CPC on behalf of defendant.
Arguments not address on behalf of plaintiff. Record
shows that on the last date of hearing as well none had appeared
on behalf of the plaintiff. It appears that plaintiff is not interested
in addressing arguments on the present application. Opportunity
to address arguments on the present application on behalf of the
plaintiff accordingly stands closed.
Application shall now be decided based on pleadings
and material on record.
Briefly stated, it is the case of the plaintiff that he is
residing in the suit property and is co-owner of the same as it is
his ancestral property which was purchased by his grandfather,
namely Chote Lal. Further, that defendant no. 1 is mother of the
plaintiff and the defendant no.2 is his cousin brother, who are
residing in the first floor of the suit property. It is submitted that
the defendants are creating hindrance in the plaintiff’s peaceful
possession of the suit property. Accordingly, it is prayed in the
Page No. 1/3
-- 1 of 3 --
present application that the defendants be restrained from
dispossessing the plaintiff, and that they be restrained from
creating any third-party interest in the suit property.
Per contra, the defendant no. 1 has submitted in the
WS that she is the owner of the suit property having purchased
the same through registered sale deed dated 15.04.2010.
It is a settled law that in order to decide application
under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, court is required to consider
three basic ingredients:-
(i) Whether a strong prima facie case is made out
in favour of the plaintiff;
(ii) Whether plaintiff would suffer an irreparable
injury if his prayer for interim injunction is
disallowed;
(iii) Whether balance of convenience lies in favour
of the plaintiff.
In the present case, though, the plaintiff is claiming
to be owner of the suit property, except a vague claim that suit
property is his ancestral property, no document has been filed by
him to substantiate the same. On the other hand, the defendant
no. 1 has relied upon registered sale deed dated 15.04.2010 in her
favour to show that she is owner of the suit property. It is settled
law that there is a presumption that a registered document is
validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie
would be valid in law. Reliance in this regard is placed on the
judgment of Prem Singh v. Birbal, (2006) 5 SCC 353. Thus,
prima facie it is clear that the plaintiff has no right, title or
interest in the suit property, and hence the plaintiff has failed to
Page No. 2/3
-- 2 of 3 --
establish that he is entitled to the relief as sought in the present
injunction application.
Thus, it is clear from the foregoing discussion that
the plaintiff has failed to prove prima facie case in his favour.
Since the first ingredient of prima facie case itself is not satisfied,
discussion on the remaining ingredients i.e. “irreparable loss” and
“balance of convenience” is inconsequential and hence, is not
warranted.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the
present application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and the
same is accordingly disposed of as dismissed.
List the matter for examination of the
parties/admission/denial of documents/framing of issues on
04.06.2025.
(Rahul Verma)
CCJ-cum-ARC (Central)
THC/Delhi/24.04.2025
Page No. 3/3
-- 3 of 3 --