Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: -Page 1 of 6-
19 Civ Suit 31/26
SUJATHA SHIROLKAR Vs. SATISH KUMAR GARG
CNR No.DLET030000502026
22.09.2026
Present: Ms. Nimisha Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
through VC.
Sh. Nirmal Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for the defendant
No.1 and 2.
Sh. Abhishek Sharma Ld. Counsel for defendant No.
3 and 5/ MCD through VC.
Sh. Utkarsh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for defendant
No.4/ DDA through VC.
Some more time is sought by ld. counsel for MCD for
filing the status report on the ground that reply from the Department
of Maintenance Division and Horticulture Department has not been
received till date.
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the application
under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC cannot be kept pending
merely on account of non-filing of the status report. It is further
submitted that the status report is not being filed because the MCD is
hand in glove with defendant No.1.
In the opinion of this Court, submissions made by ld
counsel for the plaintiff have merit. The plaintiff is required to
independently establish the ingredients required for grant of interim
injunction. The status report, when filed, can only aid the court in
appreciating the matter but cannot relieve the plaintiff of the onus
placed upon her.
Arguments have been heard on the interim application
under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC.
Be put up for orders at 04:00 PM.
(Dr. Saema Jain)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge
East/KKD Courts/Delhi
22.09.2026
-- 1 of 6 --
-Page 2 of 6-
At 04:00 PM
Present: None.
1. Vide this order, application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2
read with Section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff shall be adjudicated.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. By way of the present application, the plaintiff seeks interim
injunction against defendant no.1 restraining him from raising,
carrying out or continuing any illegal or unauthorized construction,
alteration or addition in property bearing No.171-B, Pocket-4, Mayur
Vihar Phase-I, New Delhi-110091. The plaintiff further seeks restraint
against defendant No.1 from encroaching upon, fencing, occupying or
otherwise illegally appropriating the adjacent MCD park and common
road/street, or converting the same into a private courtyard, garden,
access or any other structure for his exclusive use. The plaintiff has
also sought injunction against defendant no.1 restraining him from
obstructing or interfering with the plaintiff in carrying out necessary
repair, maintenance and safety-related works in her property bearing
No.171-H, Pocket-4, Mayur Vihar Phase-I and from obstructing her
use of the parking area stated to be situated on the roadside adjacent to
the said property.
4. The case of the plaintiff, as pleaded in the plaint, is that she is
the owner and and in possession of the third floor of property bearing
No.171-H, Pocket-4, Mayur Vihar Phase-I. Defendant no.1 is stated to
be the owner of the ground floor of property bearing No.171-B,
Pocket-4, Mayur Vihar Phase-I. It is alleged that defendant No.1 has
unlawfully demolished a portion of the compound wall, erected an
iron gate, raised boundary enclosures and carried out other
-- 2 of 6 --
-Page 3 of 6-
constructions. It is further alleged that defendant no.1 has encroached
upon the MCD park situated at the rear side of his flat and installed a
gate and a semi-permanent concrete shed at the park in order to
restrict access of the other residents to the said park. It is also alleged
that defendant no.1 obstructed the repair work being carried out by the
plaintiff in her own property and that defendant No.1 and 2 illegally
obstructed the plaintiff and other occupants from parking their cars
alongside the road adjacent to the block.
5. In support of the present application, the plaintiff has relied
upon photographs of the alleged illegal constructions, screenshots of
complaints lodged by the plaintiff and her husband with the MCD and
a copy of the complaint lodged by the plaintiff against defendant no.1
before the concerned police station regarding the alleged obstruction
to the repair work and the alleged abusive conduct of defendant no.1.
6. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that, at this stage, this Court
is not required to finally determine whether the constructions
complained of are illegal and whether they infringe upon any rights of
the plaintiff. That question would only be decided after evidence has
been led by the parties. However, the plaintiff is nevertheless required
to place sufficient material on record to establish, at least prima facie,
the right sought to be protected and the alleged infringement thereof.
7. In the present case, the pleadings themselves do not disclose
that defendant no.1 is presently carrying out any construction. The
construction complained of is described in the plaint as an act which
defendant no.1 “has” already carried out. The plaintiff refers to the
demolition of a portion of the compound wall, erection of the iron
gate, construction of boundary enclosures, installation of the gate and
-- 3 of 6 --
-Page 4 of 6-
putting up of the semi-permanent concrete shed. The allegations
made, therefore, principally concern constructions and alterations
which have already taken place.
8. Furthermore, during the course of arguments, ld. counsel for
the plaintiff was specifically asked as to whether the construction
complained of is still ongoing. Ld. counsel, in response, fairly
conceded that she is not aware whether defendant no.1 is presently
carrying out any construction or whether the construction complained
of has already been completed.
9. The submission made assumes significance, particularly, while
considering an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC.
The said provision is intended to protect the plaintiff against a
threatened injury where the circumstances justify immediate
intervention. The aim of the provision is to ensure immediate
protection where delay would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff
which cannot be compensated in monetary terms.
10. In the present case, when the plaint does not specifically aver
that the alleged illegal construction is continuing and when the ld.
counsel for the plaintiff is unable even during the arguments to clarify
whether any construction is presently being carried out, this Court
cannot proceed on an assumption that there is a continuing or
imminent threat of illegal construction by defendant no. 1 requiring
immediate restraint. Furthermore, the fact that no light could be shed
by the plaintiff regarding any construction being carried out by
defendant no. 1 as on date demonstrates that there is no present
urgency warranting interim protection.
-- 4 of 6 --
-Page 5 of 6-
11. As regards the alleged obstruction to the repair work, the
pleadings are vague. The plaintiff has merely stated that defendant
no.1 illegally obstructed the repair work being carried out by her in
her property. The plaint does not disclose what kind of repair work
was being carried out or on which particular portion of the property in
question. It also does not disclose the nature of the alleged
obstruction, or material particulars like date and time of the alleged
obstruction. Thus, in the facts pleaded, there is no ground warranting
an injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC.
12. Likewise, with respect to the alleged roadside parking area, no
material has been placed on record to establish the plaintiff’s legally
enforceable right over the particular area claimed as a parking space.
Therefore, without the plaintiff prima facie establishing her legal
right, no interim injunction can be granted in her favour with respect
to the alleged parking area.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the plaintiff has failed to
establish the requisite prima facie case for grant of the interim reliefs
sought. The material on record also does not demonstrate any present
or imminent threat warranting a temporary injunction in favour of the
plaintiff.
14. The application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with
Section 151 CPC is accordingly dismissed.
15. It is clarified that this order shall have no bearing on the merits
of the case.
-- 5 of 6 --
-Page 6 of 6-
16. Be put up for further proceedings on 13.01.2027.
(Dr. Saema Jain)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge
East/KKD Courts/Delhi
22.09.2026
-- 6 of 6 --