Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Civ Suit 436/25
SARVESH KASHYAP
Vs.
SHAILENDER KASHYAP
22.11.2025
Present: Sh. Chander Mohan, Ld. counsel for plaintiff
alongwith plaintiff.
Sh. Mitthan Lal, Ld. counsel for both the defendants
alongwith both defendants.
WS filed on behalf of defendants. Copy supplied.
Arguments advanced on an application u/o 39 Rule 1
& 2 CPC.
Orders during the course of the day.
AJAY KUMAR MALIK
JSCC/ASCJ/G.JUDGE (N/E)
22.11.2025
At 04:10 PM.
Present: None
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the application under
Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff for
restraining the defendants from creating any third party interest
in property bearing H. No. 94, Gali no. 4, Sadatpur Extension,
North-East, Delhi-110094 measuring area 50 sq yds; further to
restrain the defendants, their agents, attorneys, associates, heirs
Civ Suit 436/25 SARVESH KASHYAP Vs. SHAILENDER KASHYAP PAGE No. 1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
etc. not to dispossess the plaintiff and his mother and sister; to
pass ad-interim injunction for release of mobile, Rs. 90,000 in
cash, TV, household furniture, electronic items, gold, kitchen
items, cylinder, ration and other valuable items inside the house
and seeking ad-interim decree/order for plaintiff for permission
of entry to his own house and compensation.
2. In brief, it is case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the
sole and absolute owner of the property bearing no. N-94, Gali
no. 4 Sadatpur Extension, Delhi-94 according to property
documents Khasara no. 42, Plot No. 9, Block-A, 50 sq. yds. with
freehold rights over the land and structure, acquired through a
registered Conveyance Deed and General Power of Attorney. It is
further stated that the defendant/Shailender Kashyap, who is
plaintiff’s brother-in-law, approached the plaintiff in the year
2017 and requested for temporary stay in the aforesaid property
with his family for a period of 6 months and he further assured
that upon arranging alternate accommodation, he would vacate
the premises. It is further stated that the plaintiff allowed the
defendant and his family to occupy one room on the ground floor
and one room on the first floor alongwith access to the roof,
without charging any rent and this arrangement was based on an
oral agreement witnessed by Mr. Kalyan Singh (husband of
plaintiff) and Mrs. Indra (wife of defendant).
It is further stated that after the expiry of six months,
when the plaintiff requested the defendants to vacate the
premises, the defendant sought an extension for another year
Civ Suit 436/25 SARVESH KASHYAP Vs. SHAILENDER KASHYAP PAGE No. 2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
citing financial hardship and other personal difficulties,
considering the family relationship, the plaintiff permitted the
defendants to stay.
It is further stated that the plaintiff came to know
through neighbours that the defendant had unlawfully occupied
the roof as well and this was done without plaintiff’s consent. It
is further stated that the plaintiff has made several visits to the
premises but defendant obstruct her entry and used abusive
language when confronted. It is further stated that the defendant
has also not paid any electricity, water, or property-related
charges despite occupying the premises for several years. It is
further stated that the electricity meter of suit property is also in
the name of plaintiff and the plaintiff has been regularly making
payment of the electricity bill.
It is further stated that plaintiff sent a legal notice
dated 26.08.2025 to defendant but defendant neither replied nor
complied the same.
It is further stated that on 07.09.2025 at 6:30 am, the
plaintiff went for a walk and after about half an hour, when the
plaintiff returned to her house, she saw that the entire house was
locked and when she tried to open the door, defendant and his
wife started fighting with her, to which she called from mobile
phone of a neighbour to police. It is further stated that police
arrived there but they refused to take any action. It is further
stated that the belongings of the plaintiff and other valuable items
are inside the house, hence the plaintiff is afraid that the
defendant and his wife may use the belongings illegally and may
Civ Suit 436/25 SARVESH KASHYAP Vs. SHAILENDER KASHYAP PAGE No. 3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
steal them. It is further stated that plaintiff has also given a
written complaint to PS Khajuri Khas on 07.09.2025 but no
action has been taken.
3. In reply, it is stated that plaintiff is not the sole and
absolute owner of property bearing no. N-94, Gali No. 4, Sadat
Pur Extension, Delhi-110094, according to property documents
Khasra No. 42, Plot No. 9, Block-A, 50 sq. yds., with freehold
rights over the land and structure acquired through a registered
conveyance deed and general power of attorney. It is further
stated that defendant and his family have been in continuous
possession of the property since 2007. It is further stated that
defendants residing in the said property with consent of family
and as part of joint family arrangement not as a licensee or
temporary occupant and defendants have not unlawfully
occupied any portion of the property. It is further stated that
plaintiff is creating unnecessary disputes and trying to harass
defendants and she is trying to evict defendants. It is further
stated that defendants and their family are paying the electricity
and other household expenses from time to time. It is further
stated that mere payment of electricity bill does not confer
ownership or exclusive rights upon the plaintiff. It is further
stated that no belongings of plaintiff are lying inside the property.
It is further stated that plaintiff has not come with clean hands
before this court and suppressed the material facts and it was held
in 2008 (2) Civil Court Cases 782 (PH) suppression of material
facts that the property bearing no. N-94, Gali No. 4, Sadat Pur
Civ Suit 436/25 SARVESH KASHYAP Vs. SHAILENDER KASHYAP PAGE No. 4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
Extension, Delhi-110094 came to the share of plaintiff through
an oral family settlement in the year 2007 at his native village
and since then, plaintiff alongwith his family members has been
in peaceful, open uninterrupted, continuous and exclusive
possession thereof as owner and plaintiff has been paying for
electricity, water and all households expenses from his own
resources. It is further stated that present suit is barrred u/s 41 (h)
of Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is further stated that the suit is bad
for misjoinder of necessary party. It is further stated that neither
the suit has been properly valued nor appropriate court fee been
affixed as per law. It is further stated that present suit is liable to
be dismissed u/o VII Rule 11 CPC.
4. I have given my thoughtful consideration on the
submissions made on behalf of the parties.
5. Perusal of record shows that the plaintiff has placed on
record the electricity meter bearing CA No. 101435506 in her
name with date of energisation as 22.06.2005, which show that
the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of such property, where
as on the other hand, the defendant fails to show any ownership
document in their name or the proof of exclusive actual physical
possession of such property with them at any point of time.
Plaintiff has also placed on record certain documents to show her
ownership over suit property. So, there is prima-facie case in
favour of plaintiff. Since the present suit pertains to immovable
property, the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury
Civ Suit 436/25 SARVESH KASHYAP Vs. SHAILENDER KASHYAP PAGE No. 5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Accordingly
balance of convenience also tilts in favour of plaintiff.
6. For discussion above-stated, the present application of the
plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC is allowed to the extent
that the defendants are hereby restrained from creating any third
party interest in property bearing H. No. 94, Gali No. 4, Sadatpur
Extension North-East, Delhi-110094 measuring area 50 sq. yds
till the disposal of the suit. Nothing stated herein above shall
tantamount to be my expression on merits of the case.
Matter is adjourned for admission-denial of
documents and framing of issues.
It be relisted on 23.12.2025.
AJAY KUMAR MALIK
JSCC/ASCJ/G.JUDGE (N/E)
22.11.2025
Civ Suit 436/25 SARVESH KASHYAP Vs. SHAILENDER KASHYAP PAGE No. 6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --