Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: -1-
24 Civ Suit 755/25
SANDEEP TEKRIWAL Vs. PREET VIHAR E BLOCK
WELFARE ASSOCIATION REGD
CNR No.DLET030012142025
17.09.2026
Present: Dr. Ankit Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs
through V/C.
Sh. Sujay Dhawan, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs in
person.
Sh. Harshit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1
through V/C.
Sh. Prashant Sharma, Ld. counsel for defendant
no.2/BSES.
Sh. Utkarsh Rustagi, Ld. Proxy counsel for
defendant no. 3 through V/C.
Arguments have been heard on the application filed
under Section 151 CPC by defendant no. 1.
Record perused.
By way of the present application, defendant no. 1
seeks demolition of the illegal construction raised by the
plaintiffs, who are residence of E-96 and E-97, Preet Vihar,
Delhi-110092. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have, inter alia,
illegally constructed ramps extending to the main road and have
also extended balconies and doors opening towards the tot plot. It
has been contended by the Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 that
since the suit was instituted under Section 91 CPC in respect of
public nuisance and in public interest, the plaintiff was required
to approach the court with clean hands and, at the very least, the
illegal construction carried out by them ought to be demolished.
The submission made by the Ld. Counsel for
defendant no. 1, however, cannot be accepted. Section 91 CPC
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
provides a special remedy in respect of public nuisance or other
wrongful acts affecting or likely to affect the public. The mere
fact that the present suit was instituted under Section 91 CPC
does not confer any special powers upon this Court to adjudicate
upon any fresh cause of action beyond the pleadings. Section 151
CPC confers inherent procedural powers upon the Court to pass
orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the
process of the Court. However, it cannot be interpreted as
conferring jurisdiction upon this court to adjudicate an
independent allegation of illegal construction allegedly raised by
the plaintiffs on property that is not even the suit property and is
merely adjoining it.
In view of the above reasons, the application stands
dismissed.
Arguments have been heard on the point of
maintainability of prayer clause ‘D’/ suit on behalf of all the
parties appearing.
Be put up for orders on 27.10.2026.
(Dr. Saema Jain)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge
East/KKD Courts/Delhi
17.09.2026
-- 2 of 2 --