Interim Order 20

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 20
Civ Suit 547/23
RAJDULARI Vs. PARVEEN KUMAR
29.05.2025
Present: Sh. Anil Nagar, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Sh. Mohit Bansal, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1.
1. By way of the application filed on 11 Jan 2024,
Defendant No.1 (Praveen Kuamr) seeks deletion from the present suit
under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, arguing that he has no connection with
the suit property and has been wrongfully impleaded. He contends that
the plaintiff has suppressed material facts and approached the Court
without clean hands. He has averred that there is no cause of action
against Defendant No.1, and the entire dispute, as per the pleadings,
concerns only Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and the suit suffers from mis-
joinder of parties, as Defendant No.1 has no concern with the suit
property mentioned in either the original or amended plaint. In support
of his arguments, defendant no 1 has submitted that the actual
property of Defendant No.1 is distinct from the one claimed by the
plaintiff. He owns Plot No. C-58, while the plaintiff refers to Plot No.
C-24. Defendant No.1 alleges that the plaintiff is attempting to
encroach upon his property and has dragged him into litigation
maliciously. The police enquiry corroborates his claims, confirming
the discrepancy between the plaintiff’s documents and the actual site.
The defendant no.1 further claims that the reliefs sought by the
plaintiff do not concern Defendant No.1; hence, the suit is hit by
Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. As per the submissions, the
plaintiff's proper remedy, if any, lies against Defendant Nos. 3 and 4
for recovery, not against him. Based on the above, Defendant No.1
prays for deletion from the array of parties, as his inclusion in the suit
-- 1 of 4 --
is unjustified and baseless.
2. Per Contra, the plaintiff has vehemently opposed the
application of the defendant no 1 for striking out his name. He has
contended that the application of defendant No. 1 is an abuse of the
process of law. The claims made by the defendant are mere denials
without conclusive proof, and require trial and inquiry. The plaintiff
argues that the issue of identity and ownership of the suit property is
factual and cannot be decided at this preliminary stage, particularly
when the location of the property is in dispute, not just the address or
nomenclature. The defendant’s reliance on a police enquiry is
challenged as biased and unreliable. The plaintiff emphasizes that the
SHO has already been made a party and that legal issues should be
determined by the court, not by police findings. The plaintiff
challenges the legitimacy of the defendant’s ownership documents,
arguing that the chain of title is incomplete and lacks legal authenticity
(e.g., based on an unregistered will). The plaintiff insists that
defendant No. 1 is a necessary party due to his involvement in the
alleged illegal possession or encroachment. Mere claims of different
property numbers do not absolve him from facing trial. The plaintiff
reaffirms the right to choose whom to sue, stating that the court should
not delete a party without sufficient reason, especially when that party
is alleged to be in unlawful possession. The plaintiff prays that the
defendant’s application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC be dismissed with
exemplary costs, as its acceptance would prejudice the case and allow
the defendant to evade legal scrutiny.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. In the present case, the plaintiff primarily seeks a decree
of permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from disturbing her
peaceful possession of the property. Additionally, she seeks a
mandatory injunction compelling the defendants to disclose or
produce the complete chain of documents relating to property number
-- 2 of 4 --
C-24, Khasra No. 20/20, Gali No. 4, C-Block, Janki Panchal Vihar,
Village Karawal Nagar, Ilaka Shahdara, Delhi.
5. On the other hand, the defendant contends that the
property claimed by the plaintiff actually belongs to him. He further
asserts that the property in question is, in fact, property number C-58
and not C-24, although it falls within the same Khasra No. 20/20 and
locality as stated above.
6. Notably, both parties assert ownership and possession
over what appears to be the same plot of land measuring 50 square
yards. Each party has submitted documents such as General Power of
Attorney and agreements to sell in support of their respective claims.
At this stage, the central issue that emerges is the accurate
identification of the specific piece of land over which both parties
claim ownership and possession.
7. In this regard, a local commissioner was also appointed
vide a judicial order on 23.10.2024, and the report was submitted on
24.12.2024. Defendant no.1 has also relied upon the Local
Commissioner’s report. However, at the very outset, it is important to
point out that the LC report is also a subject matter under trial and
cannot be considered a conclusive proof qua the claims of plaintiff or
defendants, including defendant no.1.
8. Further perusal of record reveals that there are serious
disputes regarding the identity and ownership of the suit property,
which cannot be conclusively determined without trial. The difference
in nomenclature or address does not automatically prove the
defendant’s disconnection from the suit property. The plaintiff alleges
that the defendant is in illegal possession in the suit property. Whether
this is true or not is a matter for evidence. At this stage, the defendant
cannot be deleted unless it is shown unequivocally that he is neither a
necessary nor a proper party. Also, the defendant’s reliance on a police
enquiry is not determinative or conclusive in a civil suit. The plaintiff
-- 3 of 4 --
has rightly cited the principle that a plaintiff is master of his suit and a
party cannot be removed merely unless the court finds their presence
unnecessary or irrelevant to the dispute.
9. Therefore, on account of aforementioned discussions,
application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by Defendant No. 1 is
liable to be dismissed as the defendant’s connection to the suit
property is factually disputed, requiring trial, and the plaintiff has
made specific allegations against the defendant, thus, dismissing the
application, at this stage, is necessary to avoid prejudice to the
plaintiff to ensure fair adjudication. Accordingly, application stands
disposed off as dismissed.
10. Put up for further proceedings on 16.07.2025.
Animesh Bhaskar Mani Tripathi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/29.05.2025
-- 4 of 4 --