Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Civ Suit 561/25
Shahid Ali Vs. Kasim Ali
09.04.2026
Present: Sh. K.P. Singh Yadav, Ld. counsel for plaintiff
alongwith plaintiff.
Sh. Irfan, Ld. proxy counsel for defendant no. 2
alongwith D-2.
At request on behalf of defendant, matter is passover
for 11 AM.
Ajay Kumar Malik
JSCC/ASCJ/G.Judge (N/E)
09.04.2026
At 11:07 AM.
Present: Sh. K.P. Singh Yadav, Ld. counsel for plaintiff
alongwith plaintiff.
Sh. J.M. Akbar, Ld. counsel for defendant no. 2
alongwith D-2.
Arguments advanced at length on an application u/o
39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.
Be awaited for defendant no. 1/Kasim Ali.
Ajay Kumar Malik
JSCC/ASCJ/G.Judge (N/E)
09.04.2026
Civ Suit 561/25
Shahid Ali Vs. Kasim Ali
Page No. 1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
At 12:00 PM.
Present: None.
None has appeared on behalf of defendant no. 1/Kasim
Ali despite repeated calls since morning. Hence, defendant no.
1/Kasim Ali is proceeded exparte.
Ajay Kumar Malik
JSCC/ASCJ/G.Judge (N/E)
09.04.2026
At 01:15 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 defendant, its officer, agents, servant, authorized
person etc. to not to interfere the peaceful life of the plaintiff and
his family member.
2. In brief, it is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff is ex-
serviceman from CISF now retd. It is further stated that
defendant no. 1 is the son of plaintiff and defendant no. 2 is
daughter-in-law of plaintiff and one minor daughter namely
Kinza, who is grand daughter of plaintiff. It is further stated that
defendant no. 1 is drug addict and defendant no. 2 also supported
him for his bad habit and defendant no. 1 is under treatment. It is
further stated that the property in which plaintiff is living with his
family is measuring about 80 sq. yds. consisting of two floors
Civ Suit 561/25
Shahid Ali Vs. Kasim Ali
Page No. 2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
and all sons of plaintiff were married and living in their
respective portions. It is further stated that plaintiff also
published notice in newspaper Virat Vaibhav to debar them. It is
further stated that wife of plaintiff is suffering from age ailments
and three children are dependent upon plaintiff.
3. In reply/WS filed by defendant no. 2/Shahzadi, it is stated
that no cause of action arose in favour of plaintiff. It is further
stated that defendant is not in possession of suit property since
28.06.2022 and there is no allegation against defendant that she
is causing any hindrance in living of plaintiff and claiming
ownership or attempting to enter the suit property. It is further
stated that plaintiff filed the present suit in collusion with
defendant no. 1. It is further stated that summons of suit have
been served on mother of defendant no. 1, who is wife of
plaintiff, and defendant no. 1 not turn up before this court and
defendant no. 1 in collusion of plaintiff, who is father of D-1,
want to get himself proceeded exparte just to defeat the suit of
defendant no. 2 i.e. suit of Domestic Violence, where plaintiff,
defendant no. 1 and other family members are respondents and
the court concerned has passed maintenance order against
defendant no.1, who is not paying maintenance allowance. It is
further stated that to save themselves from the attachment of
household articles, present suit has been filed.
4. Submissions have already been heard. File perused.
Civ Suit 561/25
Shahid Ali Vs. Kasim Ali
Page No. 3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
5. Perusal of record shows that the plaintiff has sought the
same relief in the interim application u/o 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC as
sought in main prayer clause. It is settled law that no relief can be
granted at initial stage which tantamount to decree the suit in
initial stage. Perusal of facts itself shows that the defendant no. 2
is legally wedded wife of defendant no. 1 and daughter-in-law of
plaintiff, so, the suit property bearing H. No. 126, Village
Ghonda, Delhi-110053 is the matrimonial home of defendant no.
2. It is admitted case of plaintiff that the defendant no. 2 is
legally wedded wife of defendant no. 1 and has not been
divorced till date. Defendant no. 1 is already proceeded exparte
vide order dated 09.04.2026. In view of above observation, there
is no prima-facie case in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff has also
failed to disclose that how he will suffer irreparable loss and
injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money if the
present application is not allowed. Accordingly, balance of
convenience do not tilt in favour of plaintiff, hence, the
application u/o 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is hereby dismissed.
The observation made above do not tantamount to
final opinion on merits of case.
Matter is adjourned for replication, admission-denial
and framing of issues.
It be relisted on 25.05.2026.
Ajay Kumar Malik
JSCC/ASCJ/G.Judge (N/E)
09.04.2026
Civ Suit 561/25
Shahid Ali Vs. Kasim Ali
Page No. 4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --