Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS 406/26
ANIL KUMAR NAGAR Vs. POOJA SUTRADHAR
CNR No. DLET01-004216-2024
29.08.2026
Present: Sh. Sultan Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
None for defendants No. 1 & 2.
Sh. Vishnu Kant Pnadey, Ld. Counsel for defendant
No. 3 alongwith defendant No. 3 in person.
Sh. Rajeev Kapoor, Ld. Counsel for defendant No. 4
alongwith defendant No. 4 in person.
Sh. Kamran Khan, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.5
alongwith defendant no. 5 in person.
Sh. Varun Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for defendant
NO. 7 alongwith defendant No. 7 in person.
None for the remaining defendants.
Sh. Rajnikant, (Belt No. DI/515) SHO PS New Ashok
Nagar, Delhi in person.
Matter is listed for further PE.
Fresh vakalatnama filed on behalf of defendants no. 4
& 7. Taken on record.
Defendant no. 6 is still unserved, no report of the
service of the summons to her has been received back from Nazarat
Branch, till date.
Perusal of the record transpires that on the last date of
hearing, i.e. 13.07.2026, this Court had directed all the parties to the
suit to maintain
status quo with respect to the suit property till the
next date of hearing, i.e. today, however, it has been submitted by the
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that plaintiff has filed an application
under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC seeking initiation of contempt
-- 1 of 5 --
proceedings against the defendants, with the allegation that the
aforesaid order of
status quo has been violated by the defendants and
some of their associates.
The Ld. Counsel appearing for all the defendants,
except defendants no. 1, 2 and 6, submits that copies of the aforesaid
application have been received by them. As per the report received
from the Nazarat Branch regarding service of notice of the said
application, defendants no. 3, 4, 5 and 7 have been served, whereas
defendants no. 1 and 2 remain unserved. The report regarding the
service of the notice of the said application is not received from the
no.6, till now.
The Ld. Counsel for the defendants who have been
served with the notice of the said application have sought an
opportunity to file a formal reply to the said application. This Court
has granted an opportunity to the served defendatns to file their
respective replies to the aforesaid application in Court, along with
advance copies to the opposite side, at least 15 days before the next
date of hearing.
It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that
the persons who were removed from the suit property on 17.07.2026
were members of the family of Sh. Prakash Haldar, who is allegedly
a tenant in the suit property by breaking open the lock and gate of the
suit property by the defendants and their associates.
Though, the stand of the plaintiff has been disputed by
the Ld. Counsel for the defendants with the submissions that no
person was occupying the suit property prior to 16.07.2026 and that
the aforesaid persons entered the suit property in the morning of
-- 2 of 5 --
17.07.2026 after allegedly breaking open the lock placed on the
property. It was further submitted that the said lock had been put on
the suit property on 28.04.2026 by the beat officer of the local police
station, when a dispute was arose between the parties to the suit.
However, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff reiterated
that the property was in the occupation of the tenants of the plaintiff.
However, Ld. Counsel for the defendants that the said fact neither
been pleaded nor mentioned before this Court, even on the date when
this Court directed to maintain the s
tatus-quo on the last date of
hearing. Therefore, it is apparent that the stand taken by the plaintiff
is not correct.
At this stage, it is necessary to mention this Court is
not expressing any opinion on the rival claims of the parties
regarding possession of the suit property. The question as to who was
in possession, whether any person had entered the suit property after
breaking open the lock, and whether there was any violation of the
order dated 13.07.2026 are matters which would require
consideration after the parties have filed their respective pleadings
and the material relied upon by them. Any finding on these disputed
questions at this stage may prejudice the adjudication of the
application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.
However, considering the conflicting stands taken by
the parties and to avoid any further dispute, this Court is of the
considered opinion that it is appropriate to give a direction to all the
parties to the suit to maintain the status-quo at the suit property till
further orders or the decision of the application under Order XXXIX
Rule 1 and 2 CPC.
-- 3 of 5 --
At this stage, the Court specifically enquired as to the
person who had presently put the lock on the suit property and as to
the custody of the key thereof. The defendant no. 7 submitted that the
suit property had been locked by one of the police officials of the
local police station and that the key continued to remain in the
custody of the said police official, as it had not been handed over to
either of the parties. However, the SHO of the local police station
present in court denied that the key of the suit property is in the
possession of the any of the officials of the local police station.
Since the SHO of the concerned Police Station has
denied that the keys of the existing lock, which is alleged by the
plaintiff to have been put on the suit property and thereafter broken
open by the defendants, are in the custody of any official of the local
police station, therefore, the position regarding the custody of the
said lock and its keys remains disputed.
Accordingly, in order to avoid any further dispute this
Court has given a direction to the SHO to remove the earlier lock, if
any, from the suit property and to put a new lock thereon, with the
keys thereof being deposited in this Court. It is noteworthy to
mention that the above said direction is only meant to maintain the
status quo at the suit property and thus, it cannot be construed as a
finding, even
prima facie, regarding the title or possession of any
party over the suit property.
In compliance with the aforesaid direction, the SHO
concerned has put a fresh lock on the suit property bearing the seal
“IONANPS NEW ASHOK NAGAR EAST DISTRICT” and has
deposited all three keys of the said lock before the Court. A pen drive
-- 4 of 5 --
containing the videography of the proceedings undertaken in
compliance with the Court's direction has also been deposited.
The three keys and the pen drive are taken on record.
The SHO concerned shall ensure that the lock and seal
presently affixed to the suit property are not disturbed except with
the permission of this Court.
Ld. Counsel for the defendants are directed to file the
written statement alongwith an appropriate application for seeking
condonation of delay in filing the same in accordance with the
provision of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.
Interim order to continue till the next date of hearing.
As such, be listed for further proceedings on
31.10.2026.
Date is given as per the choice and convenience of the
Ld. Counsel for the parties.
(SANDEEP KUMAR SHARMA)
District Judge-04, East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
29.08.2026
-- 5 of 5 --