Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 28 CS SCJ 755/23
MANOJ KUMAR Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF
DELHI
03.03.2025
Present: Sh. Sandeep Khatri, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff
through VC.
Plaintiff in person.
Sh. Devender Kumar Gahtori, Ld. counsel for
defendant through VC.
Ms. Mahima Tanwar, applicant in person.
Put up for orders at 04:00 PM today.
VINOD JOSHI
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ/PHC
New Delhi/03.03.2025
At 04:00 PM
Present: None.
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application filed
under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, on behalf of the applicant, Ms.
Mahima Tanwar.
2. The applicant has made the following submissions:-
a. The applicant is residing at property No. WZ-26,
Naraina Village, New Delhi alongwith the family and the
plaintiff is in possession of WZ-13, Naraina Village, New Delhi,
which is situated just in front of the property of the applicant.
There is an approximately 10 feet wide
Gali in between both the
houses.
-- 1 of 5 --
-2-
b. On 29.07.2019, the plaintiff started illegal
constructions in violation of the by-laws of MCD, without any
prior approval. The plaintiff apart from the illegal constructions,
has encroached upon the public land by making projections at
each floor upto 4-5 feet in the gali. The applicant filed a
complaint with the MCD on 29.07.2019, however, no action was
taken by the concerned authority and the applicant filed another
complaint with the Commissioner, MCD on 30.07.2019. The
applicant also filed complaint with the chairman of Public
Grievance Commission on 01.08.2019 but no action was taken,
however, only a response dated 08.08.2019. Therefore, the
applicant again filed a complaint dated 16.09.2019, with the
Chairman, Public Grievance Commission. Again, a response
dated 24.09.2019, received from the said office, but no action
was taken.
c. The applicant thereafter, filed a complaint to the
SHO on 21.10.2019, but no action was taken. The applicant then
filed complaints with Deputy Commissioner, MCD and Public
Grievance Commission on 22.10.2019, but no action was taken.
d. Due to illegal construction/encroachment, the
natural light and air to the house of the applicant has completely
stopped. Aggrieved by the actions of the plaintiff and the
ommission of the authorities, the plaintiff filed the Writ Petition
No. 11649/19, before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It was
stated by the officials of MCD before the court that part
demolition had been already carried out and further action was to
be taken. The plaintiff moved an application in the aforesaid writ
-- 2 of 5 --
-3-
petition, stating that he has approached the Ld. Appellate
Tribunal, MCD and therefore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi,
on 28.07.2020, disposed of the writ petition stating that the issue
was to be decided by the Ld. Appellate Tribunal, MCD.
e. The plaintiff tried to mislead the Ld. Appellate
Tribunal, however, when he found himself amidst hot waters, he
unconditionally withdrew from the Appeal No. 204/21 on
27.02.2023, stating that he will move an application with MCD
for regularization of the construction.
f. The plaintiff, however, is playing fraud upon this
court as well as the MCD, by representing the same property as
No. WZ-12/B/2, Naraina Village, New Delhi, whereas, in fact the
property of the plaintiff is No. WZ-13, Nariana Village, New
Delhi.
g. The plaintiff has filed present suit without any
basis and if any orders are passed in favor of the plaintiff, the
rights of the applicant shall be affected. It is submitted that the
applicant is a necessary party to the present suit. The plaintiff, in
collusion with the officials of MCD and without impleading the
applicant, wants to procure ex parte order in his favour, thereby
causing loss to the applicant. Reply was filed to the application
by the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff has denied the averments made by the
applicant in the present application. It is submitted that the
applicant is the resident of WZ-26, Naraina Village, New Delhi,
which is having unauthorized and illegal construction and the
-- 3 of 5 --
-4-
same was booked by MCD for demolition. He prays for the
dismissal of the application.
4. Arguments have already been heard.
5. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner of
property bearing No. WZ-12/B/2, Naraina Village, New Delhi,
constructed upto second floor and as the property was a 59 years
old structure, he started some renovations, however, the
defendant MCD issued the demolition notice dated 29.08.2019.
The plaintiff, thereafter applied for regularization of the
renovation work, however, the same was refused and the officials
of MCD carried out demolition on 31.12.2019. After refusal of
the regularization by the MCD, the plaintiff approached the Ld.
Appellate Tribunal, MCD, however, the appeal was withdrawn as
there was a dispute regarding the ownership documents/property
bearing No.WZ-13, Naraina Village and WZ-12/B/2, Naraina
Village and he was advised to file a suit for declaration.
6. The plaintiff has disclosed that demolition was
carried out by the defendant MCD in the suit property, however,
he has not disclosed that the Writ Petition No.11649/19 was filed
by the applicant, pursuant to which, the defendant MCD has
carried out the demolition work. The plaintiff himself has
admitted that there is a dispute regarding the identification of the
property, which he claims to be WZ-12/B/2, instead of WZ-13.
The applicant claims that the real identification number of the
property is WZ-13 and there is no separate property with the
number WZ-12/B/2.
-- 4 of 5 --
-5-
7. The plaintiff has also sought prayer for
regularization of the constructions made by him in the property
WZ-12/B/2 and has sought injunction against the MCD for
restraining it from carrying out any demolition. The applicant has
alleged that the constructions carried out by the plaintiff are
illegal and without sanction and the plaintiff has in fact
encroached upon public street and due to the illegal
construction/encroachment, the easementary rights of the
applicant are being violated.
8. The court is of the opinion that without the presence
of the applicant in the present case, the suit cannot be completely
and effectively decided and any decision upon the issues
involved in the present case, shall have an effect upon the rights
of the applicant. Therefore, the application of the applicant under
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC stands allowed and she stands impleaded as
a defendant in the present case.
9. The applicant is directed to file WS within 30 days
from today. Amended memo of parties be filed by the plaintiff by
the NDOH.
10. Put up on 28.05.2025.
VINOD JOSHI
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ/PHC
New Delhi/03.03.2025
-- 5 of 5 --