Final Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 9 Civ Suit 114/26
Pappu Vs. Shailendra
11.03.2026
Fresh suit received by way of assignment, it be checked and
registered as per rules.
Present: Sh. Vipin Dilawari, Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
1. Arguments advanced by Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
The averments made in the plaint are that the plaintiff entered
into contract for construction with defendant for house no.
A-78/1, Gali no. 8, Khajuri Khas, Dayalpur, Delhi-94 for total
amount of Rs. 22,76,000/- for which the defendant paid only Rs.
15,44,000/- to the plaintiff and still there is liablity of Rs.
7,32,000/- to be paid to plaintiff. The plaintiff placed on record
the unregistered contract/agreement dated 02.04.2025 for above
amount and sought the relief that MCD/defendant no. 2 be
directed to demolish illegal and unauthorized construction at
property bearing no. A-78/1, Gali no. 8, Khajuri Khas, Dayalpur,
Delhi-94. Plaintiff further prayed that the defendant no. 1 be
restrained from raising illegal and unauthorized construction in
the suit property and has also prayed for the direction against
defendant no. 1 to pay the remaining amount to plaintiff as per
agreement dated 02.04.2025.
The remaining amount of Rs. 7,32,000/- is not in
pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court and the plaintiff has also not
paid the Court fees for that amount. The plaintiff has come for
recovery of amount on the basis of unregistered contract that is to
-- 1 of 3 --
say the specific performance of contract without paying the Court
fees. Apart from above, the plaintiff is resident of A-52, A-block,
Gali no. 13, Sherpur, Delhi-94 which is admittedly not adjacent
to the suit property bearing no. A-78/1, Gali no. 8, Khajuri Khas,
Dayalpur, Delhi-94, so, plaintiff has no locus-standi for filing the
present suit regarding alleged unauthorized construction by
defendant.
2. In the judgment titled as Rajinder Motwani vs. MCD RSA
No.243/17 dated 16.10.2017, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
para no. 8 held as under :
“
an illegal construction in itself does not give
any legal right to a neighbour. An illegal
construction always no doubt gives locus standi
to the local municipal authorities to seek
removal of the illegal construction, but a right of
a neighbor only arises if the legal rights of light
and air or any other legal right is affected by
virtue of the illegal construction of the neighbor.
Legal right to light and air is only in terms of
section 15 of the Easement Act, 1882 which
requires a cause of action to be laid out and
proved that right to light and air has been
enjoyed for 20 years and only on completion of
20 years there is right to acquisition by
prescription in the easementary rights. It is
relevant to note that even after acquisition of
easemenatry rights of prescription, yet, right to
injunction for a neighbor is not absolute and is
covered by Section 33 of the Easement Act
which requires that disturbance to the
easementary rights must actually cause
substantial damage to a neighbor and the
infraction materially diminishes the value of the
dominant heritage with the fact that there is
material interference in the physical comfort of
the neighbor of living in his own house or
prevents the neighbor from carrying on his
accustomed business in the dominant
heritage/his own house. All these are factual
-- 2 of 3 --
aspects and admittedly there is no cause of
action which is laid out in the plaint in terms of
section 15 and 33 of the Easement Act that right
to easement of the appellants/plaintiffs has
become absolute as it has been enjoyed for 20
years and that in fact after rights to easement are
acquired by prescription there is also a
substantial damage to the appellants/plaintiffs or
there is material interference in the physical
comfort of the appellants/plaintiffs or the
appellants/plaintiffs being prevented from
carrying on his accustomed business in their
own dominant heritage/own property.”
3. Thus, from the above judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court, it is clear that merely by virtue of being
neighbour or resident of locality, a person does not become
entitled to file a suit to restrain other from carrying illegal
construction. In order to have locus, the party filing the suit must
show that by virtue of such construction his legal right to air or
water or light has been affected or such construction is going to
be detrimental to his own property or his safety. Since, no such
right is alleged to be infringed, so plaintiff has no locus-standi to
file the present suit against the construction raised by defendant
no. 1. The defendant no. 2/MCD is at liberty to proceed as per
law. The present plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
4. File after due compliance be consigned to Record Room.
Decree sheet be prepared.
AJAY KUMAR MALIK
JSCC/ASCJ/G.JUDGE (N/E)
11.03.2026
-- 3 of 3 --