Interim Order 22

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Civ Suit 162/23
SAROJ DEVI
Vs.
RAM GOVIND SINGH
13.10.2025
Present: Sh. Shahid Hasan, Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
None for defendant.
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the application under Order
39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff, whereby plaintiff
prayed to pass an ad-interim injunction in favour of plaintiff, thereby
restraining the defendant, his agent, associates, family members from
transferring, alienating, parting with possession and/or creating any
third party interest in respect of the suit property under the
occupation of the defendant as shown in red colour in site plan
bearing H. No. 258, Gali No. 3, Plot No. 39, Prem Nagar, Karawal
Nagar, Delhi-110094 till the disposal of the suit. Arguments have
already been heard.
2. In brief, it is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff is owner
of property bearing H. No. 258, Gali No. 3, Plot No. 39, Prem
Nagar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094 consisting ground floor and
first floor, built on 50 sq. Yards(41.80 sq. Metres), purchased
from Smt. Poonam Dwevdi vide GPA, agreement, receipt, Will,
all dated 05.12.1989. It is further stated that a conveyance deed
dated 07.04.2021 was executed by DDA in favour of plaintiff
under PM-Unauthorized colonies in Delhi Awas Yojana(UDAY)
Cell DDA. It is further stated that plaintiff got installed a
Civ Suit 162/23
Saroj Devi vs. Ram Govind Singh
	Page No.1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
telephone connection and also got issued ration card on the
address of suit property. It is further stated that plaintiff is
regularly paying the house tax. It is further stated that defendant
is ‘Jeth’(elder brother of husband of plaintiff). It is further stated
that in or around 1995, the defendant approached the plaintiff to
permit him to occupy the ground floor as he came from village
and had no place to reside, accordingly plaintiff allowed him to
occupy the ground floor as licensee. It is further stated that
plaintiff made clear to defendant that defendant will have to
remove himself and his family from ground floor when
defendant’s condition improves or when the plaintiff asks him to
do so, to which defendant had agreed.
It is further stated that plaintiff was in possession of
first floor at that time. It is further stated that in the year 1999,
the plaintiff purchased the property bearing H. No. 47, Gali No.
4, Prem Nagar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094 and shifted there
because the suit property became dilapidated and required urgent
repair and reconstruction. It is further stated that plaintiff allowed
the defendant to use/occupy the first floor of suit property as
licensee and as such, defendant is now occupying the ground
floor and first floor of suit property.
It is further stated that plaintiff has four unmarried
children. It is further stated that plaintiff again and again
demanded from the defendant to remove himself and his family
from suit property but he failed to do so and threatened plaintiff
that he would sell/transfer the suit property to some third person.
It is further stated that plaintiff terminated license of the
Civ Suit 162/23
Saroj Devi vs. Ram Govind Singh
	Page No.2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
defendant and issued a legal notice dated 28.02.2023. It is further
stated that defendant failed to vacate/remove his family from suit
property and as such defendant is an unauthorized occupant on
suit property and defendant is liable to pay the sum of Rs. 500/-
per day until the defendant vacate and remove himself and his
family from suit property.
3. In reply, it is stated on behalf of defendant that the contents of
the WS be read as part and parcel of the reply to this application. It is
submitted that defendant has independent ownership right over the
suit property, in which plaintiff has no right, title or interest. It is
further stated that present suit is not maintainable as same is time
barred and has not properly valued. It is further stated that
preliminary objections be read as part and parcel of reply to this
application.
4. Perusal of record shows that the plaintiff not claimed herself to
be exclusive owner of suit property by way of any document but
claimed to have purchased the suit property as owner alongwith
husband of plaintiff. Defendant relied upon only on the unregistered
documents pertaining to year 2023 and also do not deny the
ownership of husband of plaintiff at relevant point of time, whereas
plaintiff has relied upon the house tax receipt, telephone bill and
Ration Card which obviously shows the possession of plaintiff over
suit property at contemporary time. It is not in dispute that party to
suit are members of same family and are related to each other. In
view of above, there is prima facie case in favour of plaintiff. Since,
the present matter relates to immovable property, so plaintiff will
Civ Suit 162/23
Saroj Devi vs. Ram Govind Singh
	Page No.3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
suffer irreparable loss and injury, if the present application is not
allowed. Accordingly, balance of convenience tilts in favour of
plaintiff and against defendant, hence, the application u/o 39 Rule 1
& 2 CPC is hereby allowed.
The defendant is restrained from creating third party
interest in suit property bearing H. No. 258, Gali No. 3, Plot No. 39,
Prem Nagar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094.
The observation made above do not tantamount to final
opinion on merits of case.
Matter is adjourned for admission-denial and
framing of issues.
It be relisted on 24.11.2025.
AJAY KUMAR MALIK
JSCC/ASCJ/G.JUDGE (N/E)
13.10.2025
Civ Suit 162/23
Saroj Devi vs. Ram Govind Singh
	Page No.4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --