Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 9 Civ Suit 145/26
RIZWAAN Vs. NADEEM MALIK
VC is not functioning today.
04.06.2026
Present: Sh. Keshav Vats & Sh. Komal Kant Sharma, Ld.
Counsel for the plaintiff alongwith plaintiff.
Sh. Gazi Gulfam, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.
1 alongwith defendant no. 1.
Ms. Meghna Nimbekar, Ld. Counsel for the BSES.
WS not filed by defendant no. 1. Accordingly his
defence is struck out.
In terms of statement of defendant no. 1 the ad
interim injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff as far as
prayer no. a, b and d are concerned.
Hence the defendant and his agents or associates are
restrained from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit
property till the disposal of suit.
Defendant no. 1 and his agents or associates are
restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit property till the disposal of
suit.
Defendant no. 1 and his agents or associates are
restrained from causing any obstruction in restoration of
electricity and other essential services like water supply in the
premises occupied by the plaintiff.
Now as far as prayer regarding restoration of
electricity it is submitted on behalf of defendant no. 2 BSES that
they cannot supply the electricity unless they have the request
from the owner or NOC from the owner.
-- 1 of 3 --
Put up for order regarding prayer clause no. c at
4 pm.
At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1
submits that he shall file the WS today itself. In view thereof the
direction regarding striking out defence of defendant no. 1 is
stayed and he is granted opportunity to file WS during course of
the day.
WS filed by BSES along with reply to the
application u/O 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC has already been filed. Same
is taken on record.
List the matter for completion of pleadings / framing
of issues on 23.07.2026.
Sh. Pranat Kumar Joshi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/04.06.2026
At 4:00 PM.
Present: None.
Order on application u/O 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC
As far as the interim prayer contained in clause ‘c’ is
concerned the position regarding supply of electricity was
clarified by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Sudarshan Kumar
Sharma and Anr. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. [W.P (c)
13217 of 2019) which relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Dilip (Dead) through LR Vs. Satish
and Ors., Civil appeal no. 810/2022 wherein it was held that
electricity is an essential service of which a person cannot be
deprived without cojent, reasons. It is well settled that even if
-- 2 of 3 --
dispute exists as to ownership of the property at which an
electricity connection is sought, the concerned authorities cannot
deprive the legal occupant from it by insisting that the NOC be
furnished from others who also claim to be owners. In the light
of aforesaid legal position, the submission of Ld. Counsel for
BSES that they cannot be provided electricity unless the owner
furnish their documents or NOC to the applicant is unsustainable.
Accordingly, defendant no. 2 is directed to supply electricity to
the plaintiff subject to other commercial formalities till the
disposal of this suit.
Accordingly, application u/O 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC
is disposed of in above terms.
Sh. Pranat Kumar Joshi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/04.06.2026
-- 3 of 3 --