Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS SCJ 26-2025
Vasim Ahmed Vs. Shakil Ahmed
29.01.2025
Matter is listed today on applications by Defendant.
Present: Mr. M. Hasibuddin, Learned Counsel for the
Plaintiff.
Mr. Yash Anand and Mr. Ashish Dhoundiyal,
Learned Counsel for the Defendant with applicant
Nusrat.
By an ex-parte ad interim order dated 20.01.2025,
Defendant was restrained from entering the suit property.
Thereafter, the Defendant entered appearance and has filed the
WS. The same is taken on record. Replication, if any, be filed
within four weeks from today, with an advance copy to the other
party/parties.
Defendant also filed an application under Order 39
Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the ex-parte ad interim injunction.
Since the application by Plaintiff under Order 39
Rules 1 and 2 CPC itself is yet to be finally decided, both
applications are taken up together. As per the Plaintiff, he is the
owner of the suit property i.e. “Property bearing No.: A-60 Upper
Ground Floor measuring area 125 Sq. Yards (30’×38’), part of
Khasra No. 1835, situated in the revenue estate of village
Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri, Colony known as Vasant Kunj
Enclave A- Block, New Delhi-110070, consisted of three toilet/
bathroom and two balconies and easement attach thereto i.e. use
of common passage, common staircase, common lift, common
terrace, common areas, separate overhead water tank, common
Contd...
-- 1 of 4 --
- 2 -
car parking share alongwith proportionate, undivided, indivisible,
impartible share in the land beneath the same”. The Defendant
has been entering and creating nuisance therein and is creating
hurdle in the running of the business of the Plaintiff at the suit
property. In support thereof Plaintiff has filed documents
showing that police have had to be involved due to scuffles
between the parties.
Defendant, by his WS and the applications, has
shown that the Plaintiff has maliciously filed the present suit and
has obtained the temporary injunction by suppressing the
material facts from this Court. It is his case that the parties are
siblings and both are married to siblings as well. The wife of the
Defendant was an equal partner of 50% with the Plaintiff in their
business by the name of Masteck Services. An MoU dated
18.05.2023 was executed between the parties as well as wife of
the Defendant and also subsequent agreements were arrived at
whereby the wife of the Defendant was to be given 50 % stake in
the company of the Plaintiff i.e. Masteck Services Pvt. Ltd. This
is because the Plaintiff indulged in embezzlement in the previous
business between the parties and in order to make good the same,
undertook to render accounts as well as to give 50 % equity in
the company to the wife of the Defendant. It is argued by the
Defendant that in the garb of and on the strength of the ad interim
injunction restraining the Defendant from entering the suit
property, the Plaintiff is destroying the records of the previous
Contd...
-- 2 of 4 --
- 3 -
business of the parties so that no record is left and he does not
have to render true and correct accounts thereof. Defendant has
also shown some videos to this Court in this regard though the
same have not been filed on record.
This Court has attempted to effect an understanding
between the parties, them being related, but the same has failed.
This case has been heard for a fair amount of time.
It is seen that the Plaintiff has not come to the Court
with clean hands and the history of the dealings between the
parties and the running of the other business has been concealed.
It is settled law that injunction is a discretionary relief based in
equity and it is not a matter of right.
The prayer of the Plaintiff in the temporary
injunction is the same as the final relief i.e. restraining the
Defendant from entering the suit property and it is settled that
final relief cannot be granted at the interim stage, specially when
exceptional circumstances have not been shown.
In this view of the matter, the Plaintiff has failed to
make out a case for temporary injunction and the application by
Plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is accordingly
dismissed. Needless to say, the ad-interim injunction granted by
order dated 20.01.2025 is hereby vacated.
However, the Defendant, by way of a statement, has
undertaken not to create any nuisance in the suit property nor to
do any physical violence, while reserving his right to defend
Contd...
-- 3 of 4 --
- 4 -
himself should the Plaintiff or his agents attack him. He is hereby
made bound by the same. Needless to say, the same applies to the
Plaintiff as well.
An application is filed by the Plaintiff today under
Order 39 Rule 2A CPC. Copy supplied. Reply, if any, be filed
within four weeks from today, with an advance copy to the other
party/parties.
List for completion of pleadings/admission/denial
and arguments on the pending applications on 30.04.2025.
Next date already given i.e. 14.02.2025 is cancelled.
(VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH)
Civil Judge, Patiala House Courts
New Delhi District, Delhi
-- 4 of 4 --