Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS SCJ 2098/24
SYED WAQAR ALI Vs. MOHD. MURSALEEN
with Counter Claim No. 28/24 MOHD MURSALEEN VS. SYED WAQAR
ALI (Two Cases)
28.10.2025
Present: Sh. Afroz Ahmed, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff/respondent.
Sh. Absar Ahmed, Ld. Counsel for defendant/counter claimant.
At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff in CS SCJ No. 2098/24
has filed the list of additional documents alongwith the true copy of the Sale
Deed dated 17.08.2006 alongwith the Site Plan. Copy supplied to the Ld.
Counsel for defendant. Same is opposed by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant
as same is not accompanied with appropriate application under Order 7 Rule 14
C.P.C.
Matter is at the stage of orders on the applications under Order 39
Rule 1 & 2 r/w 151 C.P.C. in CS SCJ 2098/24 Syed Waqar Ali Vs. Mohd.
Mursaleen and Counter Claim No. 28/24 Mohd Mursaleen Vs. Syed Waqar Ali.
Vide this common order, the said applications shall be disposed off in the main
suit and counter claim.
1. Arguments have already been heard previously on 23.09.2025.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff became the exclusive
owner /landlord of the properties bearing New Municipal Nos. 1518, 1545,
CS SCJ 2098/24
SYED WAQAR ALI Vs. MOHD. MURSALEEN &
Counter Claim No. 28/24 MOHD MURSALEEN VS. SYED WAQAR ALI
Page No. 1/13
-- 1 of 13 --
1546 and 1547 (old No.1109), Gali Akhunji, Farash Khana, Delhi-110006 by
virtue of registered sale deed dated 17.8.2006 and has been residing in the first
floor of his aforesaid property along with his other family members. That
aforesaid property bearing Municipal No. 1545, Rodgran, Gali Akhunji, Farash
khana, Delhi-110006 i.e a shop, herein and after called the suit property has
been let out by the previous owner to the defendant as a tenant for commercial
purposes only. That at present the rate of rent of the said tenanted shop is Rs.
1000/- per month excluding electricity charges and after purchasing of the
same, the plaintiff intimated to the defendant regarding the purchasing of the
aforesaid tenanted shop and requested to make payment of rent to him and the
defendant have paid the rent of the said tenanted shop i.e suit property
@Rs.1000/- per month till the month of February, 2020 to the plaintiff and
thereafter he did not pay the same despite repeated requests and demands of the
plaintiff. That without obtaining the consent of the plaintiff, the defendant
illegally and unauthorizedly sublet or assigned the aforesaid suit property to one
namely Waseem, as such the plaintiff has issued the legal notice to the
defendant and has already terminated the aforesaid tenancy of defendant in
respect of the aforesaid tenanted shop i.e. suit property. That the aforesaid
tenanted shop bearing municipal No. 1545 along with adjacent shop No. 1546
and 1547, Rodgran, Gali Akhunji, Farash khana, Delhi-110006, were/are
required to the plaintiff for his wife namely Aisha Habib, and as such the
plaintiff filed the eviction petitions under section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act
against the defendant and also against the tenant of the aforesaid shops No.1546
and 1547 bearing No. RC ARC No. 63112022 and RC ARC No. 67/2023
CS SCJ 2098/24
SYED WAQAR ALI Vs. MOHD. MURSALEEN &
Counter Claim No. 28/24 MOHD MURSALEEN VS. SYED WAQAR ALI
Page No. 2/13
-- 2 of 13 --
respectively and the aforesaid eviction petition No. RC ARC No. 67/2023 has
already allowed by the Hon'ble Court. The aforesaid eviction petition bearing
No. RC ARC No. 631/2022, filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for in
respect of the suit property is still pending before the Hon'ble Court of Ms.
Tista Shah, Ld. ARC (Central), Delhi. That in the month of September 2023,
the defendant tried to sell the aforesaid suit property to its respective buyers and
for this regards, he threatened the plaintiff and also approached to the local
property dealers and builders. In this regard the plaintiff moved a complaint to
the SHO of police station Hauz Qazi, Delhi vi de Complaint dated 25.09.2023,
but till yet no action have been taken. That the defendant is having intention to
dispose off the suit property by selling to its respective buyers or transferring or
creating third party interest in the said suit property. That after filing of the
aforesaid eviction petition, the defendant has been raising the illegal demands
from the plaintiff and when the plaintiff refused to fulfill the same, the
defendant is trying to dispose off the same in illegal manner, even since one
week, many property dealers along with other persons/purchaser used to visit
the suit property regularly and they openly said that the defendant has given the
instruction to sell the same to its purchaser. In this regard, the plaintiff moved a
complaint through mail to Commissioner of police, Delhi against the defendant
and requested him to intervene in the matter and direct the SHO of police
station Hauz Qazi to take action against the defendant and also protect the right
title and interest of the plaintiff in the suit property. That the defendant is
having intention to dispose off the suit property by selling to its respective
buyers or transferring or creating third party interest in the said suit property
CS SCJ 2098/24
SYED WAQAR ALI Vs. MOHD. MURSALEEN &
Counter Claim No. 28/24 MOHD MURSALEEN VS. SYED WAQAR ALI
Page No. 3/13
-- 3 of 13 --
and if the defendant, his agents, associates, relatives, representatives, assignees
etc. are not restraining from selling, transferring, alienating, letting out, creating
third party interest, parting with the possession and mortgaging the aforesaid
suit property i.e. Shop bearing Municipal No. 1545, Rodgran, Gali Akhunji,
Farash Khana, Delhi-110006 to any of its purchaser or any person(s), the
plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in
terms of money. That the plaintiff has good prima facie case and are very
hopeful to succeed in the matter. That balance of convenience also lies in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It is prayed that application be
allowed.
3. The case of the defendant is that the present suit of the plaintiff is
barred under sections 34, 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act and in view of the
judgments pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi, the suit is liable to be dismissed with cost. That the plaint
is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in view of facts mentioned in
the plaint and settled legal position of law. The plaintiff has not filed the site
plan of the suit property hence suit is liable to be dismissed with cost. That the
present suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties hence suit is liable to be
dismissed with cost. That the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and the
same is liable to be dismissed out rightly as the plaintiff has not approached this
Hon'ble court with clean hands and has made false statements before this
Hon'ble court hence suit is liable to be dismissed. That present suit is nothing
but just a gross misuse of the process of law and the same has been filed by the
CS SCJ 2098/24
SYED WAQAR ALI Vs. MOHD. MURSALEEN &
Counter Claim No. 28/24 MOHD MURSALEEN VS. SYED WAQAR ALI
Page No. 4/13
-- 4 of 13 --
plaintiff with sole motive to pressurize and harass the defendant. Hence suit is
liable to be dismissed. That no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff
and against defendant for filing the present suit hence the same is liable to be
dismissed with cost. That the plaintiff has not approached to this Hon'ble Court
with clean hands and he has suppressed the true and material facts hence suit is
liable to be dismissed. That the present suit is nothing, rather the same is sheer
bundle of lies and falsehood, and the same is also an abuse of process of law.
The present suit is based upon false and fabricated facts hence the same is liable
to be dismissed with heavy cost in favour of the answering defendant. That
plaintiff is neither owner nor landlord of the suit property. There is no
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in respect of property in
question. The alleged rent receipts do not bears the signatures of the defendant.
The plaintiff has not filed the translation of alleged rent receipt which is in
Urdu with some ulterior motive. That the copy of inspection book is not of
property in question. That defendant is about 95% blind for last about seven
years hence he is unable to make his own signature. He has not signed any
document for last about seven years. That it is admitted facts that father of the
defendant was bonafide occupant and in lawful possession of said property for
last many year. He was occupying the suit property as owner without any
intervention and hindrance from any corner of anybody on the basis of adverse
possession. That Shri Shamshed Ali was the owner of the property in question
and electricity connection had been installed in his name on 24.01.1964 in the
said property. The possession of the property in question was given to the father
of the defendant by Shri Shamshed Ali. Shri Shamshed Ali was the relative of
CS SCJ 2098/24
SYED WAQAR ALI Vs. MOHD. MURSALEEN &
Counter Claim No. 28/24 MOHD MURSALEEN VS. SYED WAQAR ALI
Page No. 5/13
-- 5 of 13 --
the father of the defendant hence the present suit is liable to be dismissed with
heavy cost. That it is also submitted that possession and occupation of the
father of the defendant in respect of the suit property was peaceful and
uninterrupted and nobody challenged his ownership in respect of suit property
in his life time. The father of the defendant expired leaving behind his legal
heirs including defendant. That it is also admitted facts that defendant and his
father have not paid the rent to the plaintiff and alleged erstwhile owners of the
suit property. That the defendant has also obtained telephone connection from
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd in property in question vide application form
no. 485321 dated 10.02.1992 and nobody challenged his right in the suit
property. That the present suit is not maintainable in view of the alleged sale
deed filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot file the present suit in view of
the contents of the alleged sale deed. That the alleged sale deed is of the
residential property. It is not mentioned in the said alleged sale deed that
defendant is tenant in respect of property in question. That it is specifically
submitted that defendant is owner by adverse possession of the property in
question. That nobody claimed ownership over the said property nor demanded
rent from defendant at any point of time, when defendant occupied the same.
Defendant is lawful and absolute owner of the said property. Hence the present
suit is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. That it is pertinent to mention
here that defendant is 75% visually handicapped vide certificate dated
30.03.2006 issued by Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Science, All
India Institute of Medical Sciences. The defendant is a very poor person and the
plaintiff is taking the benefit of the poverty of the defendant. The defendant is
CS SCJ 2098/24
SYED WAQAR ALI Vs. MOHD. MURSALEEN &
Counter Claim No. 28/24 MOHD MURSALEEN VS. SYED WAQAR ALI
Page No. 6/13
-- 6 of 13 --
unable to maintain his family due to his blindness and poverty. The relatives
and known persons are supporting to the defendant financially. That plaintiff is
claiming ownership on the basis of alleged sale deed which is forged and void
as the vendors of sale deed were not authorized to execute the alleged sale deed
in favour of the plaintiff. That plaintiff is playing fraud and he wants to grab the
suit property by hook and crook and due to this reason the alleged sale deed
was prepared. That plaintiff is also involved in the matters of land grabbing and
he used to prepare forged documents and to file the false cases hence the
present suit is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. That the several cases are
pending adjudication before the Ld. Civil Courts in respect of the property in
question. The several persons are claiming the rights illegally in suit property.
The plaintiff be directed to provide the details and to file the pleadings of the
cases which are pending or decided in respect of the property in question. The
plaintiff has not provided the details of the said cases intentionally and
deliberately with some ulterior motive, hence the present suit is liable to be
dismissed with heavy cost. That plaintiff is claiming the ownership on the basis
of forged documents which are null and void in the eye of law. Plaintiff has no
right, title or interest of any nature whatsoever in the suit property. Defendant is
owner of the property in question. That it is proved that possession of the
defendant is adequate, in continuity, in publicity and in extent and adverse to
the true owner in respect of the suit property hence the present suit is liable to
be dismissed with heavy cost. That the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable
and is liable to be dismissed being absolutely false, frivolous and baseless and
being abuse of the process of law and having been filed with ulterior motives to
CS SCJ 2098/24
SYED WAQAR ALI Vs. MOHD. MURSALEEN &
Counter Claim No. 28/24 MOHD MURSALEEN VS. SYED WAQAR ALI
Page No. 7/13
-- 7 of 13 --
harass, pressurize and blackmail to the defendant. That the plaintiff has not
come before this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and has suppressed the
aforesaid material facts from this Hon'ble Court which are sufficient to
disentitle him from getting any relief in his favour. That present suit is
absolutely misuse and abuse to the process of law. The entire story of the
plaintiff is false, frivolous and concocted. That plaintiff is not entitled for any
relief in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. That the plaintiff
cannot seek any reliefs either interim or final in view of the facts and provisions
of laws. That the present suit and application under reply are not maintainable
in view of admitted facts of the present case. That the application under reply
and suit of the plaintiff are not maintainable in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case as no cause of action arose for filing the present suit
in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. That the application and suit
of the plaintiff are not maintainable and the same are liable to be dismissed out
rightly as the plaintiff has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands
and has made false statements before this Hon’ble Court, hence application and
suit are liable to be dismissed. That the application and suit are nothing but just
a gross misuse of the process of law and the same have been filed by the
plaintiff to pressurize and harass the defendant. Hence application and suit are
liable to be dismissed. That the suit of the plaintiff is totally based upon false
and fabricated facts. That the allegation made by the plaintiff against the
defendant are false and frivolous. That the prayer clauses of the application are
wrong and denied. That plaintiff is not entitled for any relief in view of the facts
and circumstances of the case. It is prayed that the present application of the
CS SCJ 2098/24
SYED WAQAR ALI Vs. MOHD. MURSALEEN &
Counter Claim No. 28/24 MOHD MURSALEEN VS. SYED WAQAR ALI
Page No. 8/13
-- 8 of 13 --
plaintiff be dismissed with exemplary cost. Whereas the defendant vide counter
claim prays for an interim injunction order be passed in favour of the counter
claimant/defendant and against the respondent/plaintiff, thereby restraining the
plaintiff, his associates, agents, servants, assignees, attorney, associates etc from
selling and creating third party interest in the suit property i.e. Shop bearing
Municipal No. 1545, Rodgran, Gali Akhunji, Farash khana, Delhi-110006 as
shown in red colour in the site plan till the disposal of the suit.
4. I have carefully perused the applications, case files and heard the
submissions.
5. In interim application filed U/o 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Sec. 151 CPC,
the plaintiff has only sought the relief of passing ex-parte ad-interim injunction
in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant to the effect that the
defendant, his agents, associates, relatives, representatives, assignees from
selling, transferring, alienating, letting out, creating third party interest, parting
with the possession and mortgaging the aforesaid suit property i.e. Shop bearing
Municipal No. 1545, Rodgran, Gali Akhunji, Farash Khana, Delhi-110006 till
the disposal of the present suit. Whereas, defendant vide counter claim prays
for an interim injunction order be passed in favour of the counter
claimant/defendant and against the respondent/plaintiff, thereby restraining the
plaintiff, his associates, agents, servants, assignees, attorney, associates etc from
selling and creating third party interest in the suit property i.e. Shop bearing
Municipal No. 1545, Rodgran, Gali Akhunji, Farash khana, Delhi-110006 as
CS SCJ 2098/24
SYED WAQAR ALI Vs. MOHD. MURSALEEN &
Counter Claim No. 28/24 MOHD MURSALEEN VS. SYED WAQAR ALI
Page No. 9/13
-- 9 of 13 --
shown in red colour in the site plan till the disposal of the suit.
6. The plaintiff has relied upon copy of the Sale Deed dated
17.08.2006 in which suit property is comprised therein, copy of Aadhar Card of
plaintiff, copy of Rent Receipts, copy of MCD Records, copy of Eviction
Petition filed by the plaintiff, copy of the application under Section 25-B (4) of
DRC Act, copy of the order of the Ld. ARC-01, Central District, THC, Delhi
dated 08.05.2023 and copy of the complaint filed before the SHO PS Hauz Qazi
and Joint CP, Delhi. Plaintiff has also relied upon copy of the summons issued
by the Ld. ARC, Central, THC, Delhi to the defendant/respondent therein and
copy of legal notice dated 17.09.2013, its reply and rejoinder thereof. Today,
the plaintiff has also filed true copy of the Sale Deed dated 17.08.2006 as well
as original site plan.
7. Per contra, the defendant has relied upon Site Plan, copies of
Electricity bills, copies of bills issued by MTNL, copy of Handicapped
Certificate dated 30.03.2006 issued by AIIMS and copy of Death Certificate.
Defendant has also filed the copy of the Sale Deed dated 17.08.2006 and copies
of Rent Receipts but alleged them to be forged.
8. The principles regarding grant of temporary injunction are well
settled. In order to be entitled to temporary injunction, the applicant must
show :-
(i) that prima-facie case lies in his favour ;
CS SCJ 2098/24
SYED WAQAR ALI Vs. MOHD. MURSALEEN &
Counter Claim No. 28/24 MOHD MURSALEEN VS. SYED WAQAR ALI
Page No. 10/13
-- 10 of 13 --
(ii) that balance of convenience also lies in his favour and
(iii) that he shall suffer irreparable loss and injury if the said injunction
is refused.
9. Perusal of the record reflects that plaintiff is the registered owner
of the suit property vide Sale Deed dated 17.08.2006 whereas defendant has
also claimed to be the owner of the suit property but the defendant has not
produced any ownership document of the suit property in his favour or in
favour of his father late Sh. Haji Mohd. Naqi or Sh. Shamshed Ali who was the
relative of the father of the defendant. Defendant has made bald assertion of
having ownership over the suit property but has only shown documents such as
copies of Electricity bills (energisation date 24.01.1964) dated 11.07.2005 and
17.01.2012 in name of Sh. Shamshed Ali and copy of MTNL bill in the name of
the defendant dated 17.12.2002 which at best show possession of the defendant
in the suit property since 24.01.1964 onwards upto January 2012. The nature of
the possession as to whether the same was adverse and hostile to the title of the
plaintiff as contended by the defendant is a matter of trial and has to be proved
by the defendant by leading evidence. On the other hand, plaintiff relies upon
Rent Receipts showing defendant his tenant, copy of MCD Property Tax receipt
paid by the plaintiff and copy of Inspection Book of the MCD showing Sh.
Shamshed Ali as only an occupier in the suit property owned by Sh. Abdul
Shaqoor and Mohd. Ahmed in record pertaining to year 1960-61. Therefore, the
plaintiff has established prima-facie case in his favour as firstly plaintiff is a
registered owner of the suit property, secondly, Sh. Shamshed Ali who is
CS SCJ 2098/24
SYED WAQAR ALI Vs. MOHD. MURSALEEN &
Counter Claim No. 28/24 MOHD MURSALEEN VS. SYED WAQAR ALI
Page No. 11/13
-- 11 of 13 --
claimed by the defendant to be the relative of the father of the defendant is only
an occupier in the suit property which as per MCD record was owned by
previous owners in 1960-61 as named above, thirdly, plaintiff has been paying
the property tax of the suit property to the MCD and fourthly, plaintiff is relying
on copies of rent receipts showing defendant as his tenant. Plaintiff contends
that the defendant unauthorizedly without the consent of the plaintiff has sublet
the suit property to one Waseem and is also having apprehension that the
defendant is going to sell the suit property as he is showing the same to
prospective buyers. Defendant on the other hand has failed to show prima case
of being the owner of the suit property and at best has been able to show only
his possession over the suit property till January 2012 and that his possession
be counted from atleast 24.01.1964 onwards through Sh. Shamshed Ali who
was the relative of the father of the defendant. Further, the balance of
convenience also tilts in favour of the plaintiff and plaintiff will face much
inconvenience and irreparable loss, unless injunction is granted in favour of
plaintiff and against the defendant.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the interim application filed by
the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 2098/24 titled as Syed Waqar Ali Vs. Mohd.
Mursaleen under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w sec. 151 CPC is allowed and
disposed off accordingly. Whereas, the interim application filed by the Counter
Claimant/Defendant in Counter Claim No. 28/24 Mohd Mursaleen Vs. Syed
Waqar Ali under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. is dismissed and
disposed off accordingly.
CS SCJ 2098/24
SYED WAQAR ALI Vs. MOHD. MURSALEEN &
Counter Claim No. 28/24 MOHD MURSALEEN VS. SYED WAQAR ALI
Page No. 12/13
-- 12 of 13 --
11. Accordingly, an interim injunction is passed in favour of the
plaintiff Syed Waqar Ali and against the defendant Mohd. Mursaleen to the
effect that the defendant, his agents, associates, relatives, representatives,
assignees are hereby restrained from selling, transferring, alienating, letting out,
creating third party interest, parting with the possession and mortgaging the suit
property i.e. Shop bearing Municipal No. 1545, Rodgran, Gali Akhunji, Farash
Khana, Delhi-110006 till the disposal of the present suit.
Put up for framing of issues on 04.12.2025.
(Aakash Sharma)
Civil Judge-02 (Central), Delhi
28.10.2025
CS SCJ 2098/24
SYED WAQAR ALI Vs. MOHD. MURSALEEN &
Counter Claim No. 28/24 MOHD MURSALEEN VS. SYED WAQAR ALI
Page No. 13/13
-- 13 of 13 --