Interim Order 14

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 11
CS No. 148/25
SANJAY SHARMA Vs. SHASHI BALA
03.10.2026
Present : Plaintiff (through VC).
Sh. R. S. Gowami, Ld. Counsel for the defendant
(through VC).
Matter is fixed for order on application under Order
XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC.
Be put up at 4:00 PM for order.
(GAURAV GUPTA)
DJ-06, EAST/ KKD COURTS
DELHI/03.10.2026 R
At 4:00 PM,
Present : None for the parties.
1. By way of said order, application under Order XXXIX
Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC shall be decided.
2. It has been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the
plaintiff had purchased the property situated at 2nd floor
consisting of one room set part of property no. A-31, area
measuring 25 sq. yds out of rec. no.11, Kila no.14, situated in the
abadi of Indira Park in the area of Village Khajuri Khas, Illaqua
shahdara, Delhi-51 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’)
from one Sh. R.P. Sabharwal for consideration amount of Rs.
50,000/- vide General Power of Attorney, and Will both dated
06.10.1998 registered before the Sub- Registrar IV, and notarized
-- 1 of 5 --
CS No. 148/25
..2..
Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, & Receipt of payment dated
24.09.1998 Delhi and took over the possession of the suit
property from the vendor on 24.09.1998; that plaintiff was
residing at the suit property however, due to lesser space in the
suit property, the plaintiff shifted to another property; that the
suit property was locked by the plaintiff and he used to visit the
suit property off & on for the purpose of maintenance and
cleaning it; that the defendant was residing on the 3rd floor of the
same property in which the suit property is situated and had an
evil eye on the suit property; that in December, 2005, defendant
with ulterior motive, in absence of the plaintiff, broke open the
lock of the suit property and entered into it; that on 05.01.2006,
plaintiff came to the suit property alongwith his friend for the
purpose of cleaning it, however, plaintiff found that lock of the
suit property was broken and defendant was sitting in the
property.
3. It has further been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that
an FIR no. 133/2006 u/s 448/380/506 IPC was registered against
the defendant at P.S. Krishna Nagar on 01.04.2006; that during
the course of the investigation, it has come in evidence that
Almirah of plaintiff containing important documents, clothes etc.
was found to be placed inside the suit property; that said almirah
was seized by Investigating Office in the aforesaid case and
photographs of the same were taken; that the articles containing
utensils, T.V. etc. was found in the suit property and same was
also photographed by the IO and that on 18.01.2025, IO in the
-- 2 of 5 --
CS No. 148/25
..3..
aforesaid FIR filed a report before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate
stating that no articles of the plaintiff were found in the suit
property therefore, in view of report of IO, the plaintiff came to
know on 18.01.2025, that he has been illegally dispossessed from
the suit property.
4. It has also been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the
balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendant; that denial of injunction will result in irreparable
loss to the plaintiff whereas no prejudice would be caused to the
defendant. It is prayed that the application may be allowed and
the defendant, her legal heirs, agents, representatives, associates,
attorneys or anybody acting on her behalf may be restrained
from selling, disposing off, alienating, part with possession and
creating any third party interest in the suit property till the final
disposal of the instant suit.
5. Reply to the said application has been filed on behalf of
the defendant. It is stated on behalf of the defendant that he is the
owner of the suit property as she had purchased two flats in the
property bearing no. A-31, in the Abadi of Indira Park in the area
of Village Khajuri Khas, Illaqua Shahdara, Delhi-51 from her
own funds; that out of the said two flats; that the plaintiff
compelled the defendant to register the documents of one flat
(i.e. the suit property) in his name while the other was registered
in the name of the defendant; that flat of defendant was sold
under compulsion for the dire need of the plaintiff and sale
proceeds of the said flat was given to the plaintiff as he promised
-- 3 of 5 --
CS No. 148/25
..4..
to repay the same and both the plaintiff and the defendant started
living together in the suit property as husband and wife; that
defendant was never inducted as tenant and never paid any rent
in respect of the suit property by the defendant. It is prayed that
the present application may be dismissed.
6. Rejoinder to the reply to the present application has been
filed by the plaintiff, thereby denied the averments made in the
reply.
7. Submissions heard. Record perused.
8. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession, mesne
profit, perpetual and mandatory injunction. The plaintiff claims
to be the owner of the suit property having purchased the same in
the year 1998 from previous owner R. P. S. Sabbarwal and
claims to be in possession of the same since 1998. The plaintiff
claims that he had shifted to another house in the year 2003 and
that the suit property was locked by the plaintiff. He later found
out in the year 2006 that the defendant had trespassed into the
plaintiff’s property and in this regard, FIR was also registered
against the defendant at police station Krishna Nagar. The
defendant on the other hand claims that suit property was
purchased by her, however, with an ulterior motive, the plaintiff,
who was in relationship with the plaintiff at that time got the
property documents executed in his own name. The right, title
and interest of the parties can only be decided after trial.
9. In view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the
present case, the Court is of the view that till adjudication of the
-- 4 of 5 --
CS No. 148/25
..5..
subject matter, the suit property needs to be preserved in order to
avoid multiplicity of litigation and multiplicity of parties.
10. In view of aforesaid discussion, application under Order
XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC stands allowed.
Defendant, her legal heirs, agents, representatives, associates,
attorneys or anybody acting on her behalf is restrained from
selling, disposing off, alienating, part with possession and
creating any third party interest in the suit property till final
disposal of the suit.
11. Put up for framing of issues on 07.01.2027.
(GAURAV GUPTA)
DJ-06, EAST/ KKD COURTS
DELHI/03.10.2026 R
-- 5 of 5 --