Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 12 CS SCJ 2447/24
SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. GEETA & Ors.
04.01.2025
Present: Sh. Deepak Kohli, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff with plaintiff.
Sh. Naresh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for defendants no.1, 2 and 3 with
defendants no.1, 2 and 3.
Fresh vakalatnama filed on behalf of defendants no.1, 2 and 3 by
the Counsel. Same is taken on record.
Summons have been received back served upon defendant no.1
through her son Sh. Dinesh on 24.12.2024.
Summons have been received back served upon defendant no.2
through his brother Sh. Dinesh on 24.12.2024.
Summons have been received back served upon defendant no.3
personally on 24.12.2024.
Copy of the plaint and documents have been supplied to the Ld.
Counsel for defendants no.1, 2 and 3. Written statement be filed within the
statutory period with advance copy to the opposite party.
Arguments heard on behalf of the parties on the ad-interim prayer
for injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC on behalf of the
plaintiff.
1. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that plaintiff is running
a ready-made garments shop since 2000 at the suit property i.e. Ground Floor at
property bearing no.5/5, Amrit Kaur Puri, Double Storey, Tank Road, Dev
Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 which was taken on rent by the plaintiff
CS SCJ 2447/24
Page no. 1 of 7
SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. GEETA & Ors.
-- 1 of 7 --
in the year 2000 from the late father-in-law namely Sh. Tiku Ram at monthly
rent of Rs. 12,000/- per month and at the time of induction, the plaintiff had
paid an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as refundable security. That plaintiff was
regular in making payments of the rent. That after the demise of the father-in-
law of the defendant no.1, the late husband of defendant no.1 namely Sh. Babu
Lal was receiving rent as landlord from the plaintiff in respect of suit property.
That in the year 2021 the plaintiff gave financial assistance to Sh. Babu Lal for
amount Rs. 1.50 Crore which was within the knowledge of the family members
of Sh. Babu Lal. That in the month of August 2024, Sh. Babu Lal i.e. husband
of defendant no.1 expired. That thereafter the family members of Sh. Babu Lal
became dishonest and instead of returning the financial assistance taken by Sh.
Babu Lal, they started harassing the plaintiff by demanding possession of the
suit property. That on 18.12.2024 at about 03:50 PM, the defendants alongwith
one Smt. Sushila, Smt. Beena, Smt. Moni Devi, Smt. Bhagwati, Smt. Pooja,
Smt. Yogita, Smt. Meena, Smt. Jyotsna and Smt. Manju in a well planned
conspiracy forcibly entered into the suit property and started throwing the
ready-made garments from the shop on the road. These ladies started
threatening the plaintiff and his employees Sh. Tajinder Singh and Sh. Gaurav
that if the suit property is not vacated, they will tear their clothes and falsely
implicate the plaintiff and his employees in a false case. That someone called
police officials and police personnel reached at the spot and managed the
situation and took the plaintiff, his employees and the defendants and their
associates to the police station PS Prasad Nagar and an FIR No.429/2024 dated
18.12.2024 under Sections 329(4)/3(5) BNS was lodged. That on the next day
on 19.12.2024, when the plaintiff came at the suit property to open his shop, the
defendants alongwith several ladies was sitting outside the shop on a carpet and
CS SCJ 2447/24
Page no. 2 of 7
SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. GEETA & Ors.
-- 2 of 7 --
they did not allow the plaintiff to open the suit property and openly threatened
the plaintiff with false implication in criminal cases if he dared to open the
shop. That since then the defendants are not moving from the shop and not
allowing the plaintiff to open his shop, whereas plaintiff is earning his
livelihood from the suit property and the defendants are creating unlawful
hindrance in opening the suit property. That the plaintiff has the right to enjoy
the suit property being tenant of the suit property and thus, has prima facie case
in his favour entitling the issuance of an interim injunction in favour of the
plaintiff. That the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable injury and loss which cannot
be compensated for damages unless injunction is granted in his favour. That the
balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff who is likely to suffer
substantial injury if the injunction is refused when compared to the injury
which might be caused to the defendants if the injunction is granted. It is prayed
that an injunction be granted to restrain the defendants, their family members,
agents, assignees, associates and representative from creating any nuisance and
hindrance in the smooth functioning of the shop by the plaintiff and hindrance
in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and further restraining the defendants
their agents, assignees, associates and representatives from taking forceful
possession of the shop of the plaintiff and further restrain the defendants and
their associates from entering into the shop in the possession of the plaintiff i.e.
shop situated at Ground Floor, at property bearing no. 5/5, Amrit Kaur Puri,
Double Storey, Tank Road, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 as
shown in red colour in the site plan annexed till the next date of hearing of the
present suit and also pass injunction order in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendants thereby restraining the defendants, their family members, agents,
assignees, associates and representative to remove themselves and their illegal
CS SCJ 2447/24
Page no. 3 of 7
SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. GEETA & Ors.
-- 3 of 7 --
sitting on Dari (carpet) from outside the shop of the plaintiff i.e. shop situated at
Ground Floor at property bearing no. 5/5, Amrit Kaur Puri, Double Storey, Tank
Road, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 as shown in red colour in the
sit plan annexed till the next date of hearing of the present suit.
2. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendants no.1, 2 and 3 has submitted
that the suit filed by the plaintiff is a cleverly drafted plaint and is a blatant
abuse of process of law. That it is admitted that the plaintiff is a tenant of the
defendants no.1, 2 and 3 and it is also admitted that the plaintiff is in possession
of the suit property. However, the plaintiff is under collusion with the other
family members of the defendants no.1, 2 and 3 as the plaintiff has not
impleaded Smt. Sushila, Smt. Beena, Smt. Moni Devi, Smt. Bhagwati, Smt.
Pooja, Smt. Yogita, Smt. Meena, Smt. Jyotsna and Smt. Manju as defendants
despite naming them clearly in para 6 of the plaint. That only three persons out
of 12 persons named in the FIR No.429/2024 dated 18.12.2024 under Sections
329(4)/3(5) BNS i.e. defendants no.1, 2 and 3 have been impleaded by the
plaintiff and he has left out nine persons deliberately. That plaintiff is raising
unnecessary grievance and the defendants no.1, 2 and 3 were only protecting
their property from usurpation from the persons with whom the plaintiff is
under collusion and whom he has not impleaded deliberately in the suit. That
the defendants no.1, 2 and 3 are not hindering the plaintiff from entering the
suit property and the sitting on
dari (carpet) was only to prevent induction of
third parties into the suit property with whom the plaintiff is colluding. Hence,
it is prayed that present prayer be rejected.
3. Heard. Perused.
CS SCJ 2447/24
Page no. 4 of 7
SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. GEETA & Ors.
-- 4 of 7 --
4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent decision of
Bloomberg
Television Production Services India Private Limited & Ors. Vs. Zee
Entertainment Enterprises Limited on 22.03.2024 has observed in para 5:-
The three-fold test of establishing (i) a prima
facie case, (ii) balance of convenience and (iii)
irreparable loss or harm, for the grant of interim relief, is
well-established in the jurisprudence of this Court. This
test is equally applicable to the grant of interim
injunctions in defamation suits. However, this three-fold
test must not be applied mechanically to the detriment of
the other party and in the case of injunctions against
journalistic pieces, often to the detriment of the public.
While granting interim relief, the court must provide
detailed reasons and analyze how the three-fold test is
satisfied. A cursory reproduction of the submissions and
precedents before the court is not sufficient. The court
must explain how the test is satisfied and how the
precedents cited apply to the facts of the case.
5. Ld. Counsel for defendants no.1, 2 and 3 has fairly conceded
during arguments that plaintiff is a tenant of the defendants no.1, 2 and 3 in the
suit property and plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. Rent agreement
dated 01.08.2000 is available on record. Copy of the FIR no.429/2024 has been
perused regarding the incident which occurred on 18.12.2024 which contains
12 named persons against whom the plaintiff has alleged that these persons
tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. Photographs relied on by
CS SCJ 2447/24
Page no. 5 of 7
SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. GEETA & Ors.
-- 5 of 7 --
the plaintiff show thrown out goods of the plaintiff scattered on the road outside
the suit property allegedly thrown by the defendants no.1, 2 and 3 and their
agents/associates. Photographs also show a group of ladies sitting on a green
dari (carpet) outside the suit property in order to obstruct the opening/accessing
of the suit property. During arguments, it has been conceded that defendant no.1
is one of the ladies seen in the photograph on page no.31 of the judicial file
wearing red sari and black sweater who is sitting on the carpet outside the suit
property. Thus, prima facie case lies in favour of the plaintiff.
6. It also appears that the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable injury and
loss which cannot be compensated for damages unless injunction is granted in
his favour as prima facie the plaintiff being tenant has a right to enjoy the suit
property and cannot be obstructed as such by the defendants or their
agents/family members from accessing the suit property.
7. It also appears that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the
plaintiff who is likely to suffer substantial injury if the injunction is refused
when compared to the injury which might be caused to the defendants if the
injunction is granted as admittedly the plaintiff is a tenant in the suit property
and using the same for his livelihood by running a shop since the year 2000.
8. In these circumstances, the plaintiff has satisfied the triple test of
prima facie case, balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable injury
which cannot be compensated monetarily by damages and is accordingly
entitled to ad-interim injunction as prayed in his favour.
CS SCJ 2447/24
Page no. 6 of 7
SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. GEETA & Ors.
-- 6 of 7 --
9. Accordingly, the defendants no.1, 2 and 3, their family members,
agents, assignees, associates and representatives by way of ad-interim
injunction are restrained from creating any nuisance and hindrance in the
smooth functioning of the shop at the suit property by the plaintiff or creating
hindrance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and
are further restrained from taking forceful possession of the suit property from
the plaintiff and are further restrained from entering into the suit property i.e.
shop situated at Ground Floor, at property bearing no. 5/5, Amrit Kaur Puri,
Double Storey, Tank Road, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 till the
next date of hearing.
Also, the defendants no.1, 2 and 3, their family members, agents,
assignees, associates and representatives are directed by way of ad-interim
mandatory injunction to forthwith remove themselves and their sitting on Dari
(carpet) from outside the suit property i.e. shop situated at Ground Floor at
property bearing no. 5/5, Amrit Kaur Puri, Double Storey, Tank Road, Dev
Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 till the next date of hearing.
Put up for filing reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 &
2 r/w Section 151 CPC on behalf of the plaintiff/arguments/filing of written
statement on 15.02.2025.
Copy of this order be given dasti to the parties.
(Aakash Sharma)
Civil Judge-02 (Central), Delhi
04.01.2025
CS SCJ 2447/24
Page no. 7 of 7
SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. GEETA & Ors.
-- 7 of 7 --