Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: -1-
4 Civ Suit 916/25
SMT. JAYASHREE M NAIR Vs. SH. PAWAS PARASOON
03.01.2026
Present: Sh. Puran Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff/
non-applicant.
Sh. Amresh Kumar, ld. counsel for defendant no.
1/applicant alongwith defendant no. 1/applicant.
Sh. Vijay Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for defendant
no.3/MCD.
Arguments have been heard on the pending
application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Record perused.
It is contended by defendant no. 1 that the property
bearing flat no. 334 C, first Floor, Pocket-II, Mayur Vihar, Phase-
II, East Delhi, Delhi-91 belongs to his wife Ms. Kavita Prasoon
and therefore, she is a necessary party to the present suit. The
application is supported by the sale deed executed in favour of
Ms. Kavita Prasoon.
In view of the copy of sale deed placed on record, it
is evident that Ms. Kavita Prasoon is the owner of the flat in
question. Accordingly, the application under Order 1 Rule 10
CPC is allowed. Ms. Kavita Prasoon is impleaded as defendant
no.1 in the present case and Sh. Pawas Prasoon Sharma is deleted
from the array of parties.
Amended memo of parties be filed on the NDOH.
Status report as well as WS has been filed on behalf
of defendant no.3. Taken on record. Copy supplied.
Arguments have also been heard on the application
filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC by defendant no. 1 / applicant.
Record perused.
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
It has been argued by ld. Counsel for the applicant/
defendant no. 1 that it is the plaintiff who is encroaching upon
public land and that no illegal construction is being carried out by
the applicant. It is further submitted that only repair work is
being undertaken due to major cracks in the flat and that
necessary intimation has already been given to the MCD.
However, the photographs annexed with the plaint as
well as the status report and WS filed by the MCD / defendant
no. 3 clearly reveals that the activities carried out by the
applicant/ defendant no. 1 do not come within the ambit of mere
repair work but amount to full fledged construction. Defendant
no. 1 has failed to show that necessary prior permission was / has
been taken from the MCD for such construction. Further, the
show cause notice issued under Section 344 (1) and 343 of the
DMC Act, annexed alongwith the WS filed by MCD establishes
that the property of defendant no. 1 / applicant has already been
booked for unauthorised construction.
In view of the aforementioned facts and
circumstances, no merit is found in the application under Order
39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the interim order passed on
04.12.2025 and the application is accordingly dismissed.
Be put up on date already fixed i.e. 24.02.2026.
(Dr. Saema Jain)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge
East/KKD Courts/Delhi
03.01.2026
-- 2 of 2 --